Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Stoke-on-Trent Extension Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour the purchasing power of the pound sterling in the period of January to December, 1929, as based on the cost-of-living index number, as compared with the same period in 1914?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): Calculated in the ratio of the Ministry of Labour cost-of-living index number which relates to the expenditure of working-class families, what is popularly known as the purchasing power of the pound sterling in 1929, as compared with July, 1914, averaged 12s. 2d. Comparison is made with July, 1914, as comparable figures for earlier dates are not available.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any increase since December, 1929?

Miss BONDFIELD: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour the total of days lost owing to industrial disputes in the 12 months ending 1st June; and how it
compared with the figure for the previous 12 months?

Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Willesden East (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on 17th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Lady say whether they do not Show that eight times as much time was lost this year as compared with the year before?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AGED WORKERS.

Mr. TINKER: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour if she can give the number of persons over 60 years of age who are totally unemployed and drawing unemployment benefit, and also the number over the same age who are partially employed and drawing benefit?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. TINKER: Do they not take the ages of people who make claims for benefit?

Miss BONDFIELD: Not at the moment of application, and the figures could not be obtained without an analysis.

Mr. McSHANE: Can the right hon. Lady give any approximate number?

Miss BONDFIELD: I do not think that it is possible.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (STAFF).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour the total increase in the number of the personnel employed in Employment Exchanges throughout the country during the past 12 months?

Miss BONDFIELD: The increase in the staff of Employment Exchanges, excluding cleaners who are mostly part-time, was 3,257 at 1st June, 1930, as compared with 1st June, 1929.

Mr. HACKING: In spite of the very large increase in the staff required, is the right hon. Lady satisfied that there is sufficient staff to deal with the ever-increasing number of unemployed?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am watching that carefully, and I have arranged for one week's overtime pending the necessary increase.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Has there been any basis of the staffing arrangements, or is it still fluctuating with the Exchanges?

Mis BONDFIELD: It is still fluctuating with the Exchanges.

Mr. HANNON: Is not this increase in staff due to the increase in unemployment consequent on the policy of the Government?

COTTON OPERATIVES.

Mr. HACKING: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of male and female cotton operatives in the spinning and weaving sections who were registered as unemployed at the latest convenient date and at the corresponding date last year?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is necessarily long and contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Department.
27th May, 1929.
26th May, 1930.



Men.
Women.
Total.
Men.
Women.
Total.


Card and blowing room:











Wholly unemployed
…
…
…
798
4,012
4,810
1,222
9,188
10,410


Temporarily stopped
…
…
…
1,132
5,399
6,531
3,278
15,744
19,022


Total
…
…
…
1,930
9,411
11,341
4,500
24,932
29,432


Spinning:











Wholly unemployed
…
…
…
3,617
3,176
6,793
7,242
7,902
15,144


Temporarily stopped
…
…
…
6,052
5,405
11,457
18,743
12,321
31,064


Total
…
…
…
9,669
8,581
18,250
25,985
20,223
46,208


Beaming, winding and warping:











Wholly unemployed
…
…
…
563
2,940
3,503
1,414
7,897
9,311


Temporarily stopped
…
…
…
1,051
8,348
9,399
3,883
18,920
22,803


Total
…
…
…
1,614
11,288
12,902
5,297
26,817
32,114


Weaving:











Wholly unemployed
…
…
…
1,860
5,554
7,414
5,109
21,854
26,963


Temporarily stopped
…
…
…
1,793
5,966
7,759
9,594
26,529
36,123


Total
…
…
…
3,653
11,520
15,173
14,703
48,383
63,086


Other processess











Wholly unemployed
…
…
…
444
233
677
837
377
1,214


Temporarily stopped
…
…
…
400
416
816
1,167
586
1,753


Total
…
…
…
844
649
1,493
2,004
963
2,967

Mr. HACKING: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there will probably be a reduction in the unemployment in the cotton industry owing to the advertisement which she has given to-day?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why are you not in cotton, in a white sheet?

Following is the reply:

The total number of insured persons aged 16 to 64, classified as belonging to the cotton textile industry, recorded as unemployed in Great Britain at 26th May, 1930, was 217,030, including 67,381 males and 149,649 females, as compared with a total of 77,780, including 25,194 males and 52,586 females at 27th May, 1929. It is not possible to furnish an analysis by occupations of these totals, but the following statement shows the numbers of men and women aged 18 and over classified as belonging to the various sections of the industry who were on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the 57 principal cotton trade centres at the same dates.

BENEFIT CLAIMS

Mr. WHITE: 6 and 7.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) if she can state, as on any recent convenient date, the number of married and single women, respectively, who have made application for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, who had previously been disallowed under the statutory conditions in operation before the passage of that Act, and the results of such applications;
(2) if she can state, as on the last convenient date, the number of claims to benefit submitted under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, by applicants who had previously been disallowed on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking work or had not had a reasonable period of employment, the number of those claims which have been allowed, and the number disallowed on the ground that the applicants are not normally occupied in insurable employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that separate figures giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. ALPASS: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether her attention has been called to the fact that a number of men employed at the Avonmouth Docks, Bristol, who registered as unemployed on Tuesday, 10th instant, have had their claim for unemployment benefit disputed by the local official; whether she is aware that a statement was made by the employers' representative that the claims were genuine; and what action she proposes to take to ensure that benefit will be paid to the men at an early date?

Miss BONDFIELD: In this case there was a trade dispute, and it was necessary for the claims of the men concerned to be referred to the headquarters insurance officer for a decision as to the date when they would become eligible for benefit. I am informed that a decision was given on 17th June to the effect that the disqualification on account of the trade dispute did not extend beyond the 6th and 7th June.

Mr. ALPASS: Will the right hon. Lady have a communication sent there, so that the men shall know that their claim will be admitted this week?

Miss BONDFIELD: That has already been sent.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Lady do what she can to speed up the cases which are referred from a court of referees to the Umpire? I have several cases that have been waiting for three months for a decision.

Miss BONDFIELD: I will do my best. I have made further appointments of umpires in view of the surge of work due to the new legislation coming into operation.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. HANNON: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of unemployed in the iron and steel trades at the latest date for which returns are available?

Miss BONDFIELD: At 26th May, 1930 the number of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, classified as belonging to the iron and steel industries (including pig iron manufacture, steel melting, iron and steel rolling and forging, etc.) recorded as unemployed in Great Britain was 58,194.

Mr. HANNON: Having regard to the significance of this fall in the figures, is the right hon. Lady making any representations to her colleagues in the Government to take definite steps to safeguard the steel industry, in order to prevent this rise in unemployment?

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Lady surprised in view of the fact that we are importing £3,000,000—[Interruption.]

PUBLIC WORKS (EMPLOYMENT).

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she will grant a return analysing the 115,000 persons given employment on public works on the initiative of the Government, and showing the composition of these persons classified according to sex, age, and the last regular occupation of employ.s, and distinguishing the above into the two classes of those without and those with dependants?

Miss BONDFIELD: In order to obtain these particulars, it would be necessary to ask each of the local authorities concerned to make a special return. I am very reluctant to throw this additional burden on the authorities at a moment
when they are being pressed to throw all their energies into the speeding up of the provision of work.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Does the Minister not agree that this will be the best way of ascertaining the real value of unemployment schemes to the people for whom they are intended?

Miss BONDFIELD: I realise the value of getting such statistics, and I might find out whether it is possible to get something not quite so exact at the time at which payments are sent from the Employment Exchanges.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the Minister communicate with me to see whether we can get it within a reasonable time, and the nature of what she thinks it is possible to get without undue trouble?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.

INSURANCE FUND.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour the present position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund; and whether it will be necessary to introduce further legislation in connection therewith before the summer recess?

Miss BONDFIELD: The debt of the Unemployment Fund to the Exchequer was £42,510,000 on the 14th June. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Sir A. POWNALL: Is the proportionate increase, which is only payable half-yearly, included in the total?

Miss BONDFIELD: No.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of women who are at present undergoing training for domestic service under the schemes to relieve unemployment?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of girls and women now in training at the home training centres administered by the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment with a view to entering domestic service, is about 1,000, equivalent approximately to 3,500 in the course of a year.

Mr. LEWIS: Having regard to the fact that this is one of the occupations in which the demand for labour exceeds the supply, cannot the right hon. Lady hold out some hope that she can get an increase of these numbers shortly?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Women's Committee is only too anxious to put centres where possible.

Mr. ALPASS: Is it not a fact that the demand exceeds the supply because of the intolerable conditions in domestic service?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour if her attention has been called to the shortage of cooks and other classes of domestic servants in this country; and if, in view of the increase of unemployment, she will say what measures are being taken to meet the demand?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am aware of the opportunities of employment offered ay domestic service. Apart from the facilities offered by the Employment Exchanges the action taken to increase the supply consists of special training centres. There are 32 centres at present open, and the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment are prepared to establish further training centres to the extent to which circumstances justify it.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Lady say whether the efforts to meet the shortage of cooks have been successful? Slit has given a general statement, but can she give me definite statistics to show whether she has placed any cooks in situations?

Miss BONDFIELD: Oh, these girls are eagerly snapped up as soon as they have finished their training.

Mr. GILL: Is the right hon. Lady prepared to give some guarantee that the girls trained under this scheme will go to homes where decent conditions prevail?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am happy to say that great cafe is taken by the superintendents of these centres to try to follow up these girls, and I think the fact of the girls passing through these centres is having its effect upon conditions.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Lady see that employers produce a character, seeing that they ask for characters from the girls?

Mr. CLARKE: Is the Minister prepared to appoint a special Exchange for domestic servants?

Miss BONDFIELD: I thank the hon. Member for the suggestion, and I will certainly give it my careful consideration.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like a reply to my question. [Laughter.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to put the question down.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: This is no laughing matter to me. These people are of my class. It used to be done.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question really does not arise directly out of the answer.

Mr. KELLY: Is it not a fact that prior to the War references had to be given by employers in many cases?

JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT CENTRES.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour how many juvenile employment centres are now open; how many have been opened or re-opened in the present year; and what number in that period have been closed owing to low attendances or the cessation of the need for their existence?

Miss BONDFIELD: There are at present 77 junior instruction centres and 11 junior instruction classes in operation in Great Britain. Since 31st December eight centres and four classes have been opened or re-opened. None have been closed since that date owing to low attendances or the cessation of the need for its existence.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that centres are available for the young persons who need training?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, I am not satisfied. I should much prefer to see the pace speeded up.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Lady bring pressure to bear on local authorities to find the necessary centres as soon as possible?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will see to that.

FARM-TRAINING CENTRES.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour what number of men are in training to-day at the Ministry's farm-training centres at Claydon and Brandon, respectively, and of them what numbers are training Stir oversea settlement and home employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: 119 men are now in training at Claydon and 409 at Brandon. Of these 166 are training for overseas settlement and 362 for home employment. Under arrangements now in progress there will be shortly a considerable addition to the number of men in training at these centres for home employment.

SCOTLAND.

Major COLVILLE: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour at what date the unemployment figures for Scotland last stood at their present level?

Miss BONDFIELD: The last date on which the numbers of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Scotland was at approximately the present level was in December, 1926.

Major COLVILLE: Can the right hon. Lady say whether in any single area in Scotland the numbers of the unemployed have diminished since the Government took office?

Miss BONDFIELD: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARDS (CATERING TRADE).

Mr. McSHANE: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is now in a position to state her intentions with regard to the proposed trade board for the catering trade?

Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 22nd May, from which he will see that I cannot come to a decision before the end of June.

Mr. McSHANE: If I put down a question in a fortnight's time, will the right hon. Lady be in a position to answer?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have informed the hon. Gentleman that at the end of June I shall be able to reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour what number of persons went overseas after a course of training at one of the Ministry's training centres in the years 1928 and 1929, respectively; and in what Dominions did they settle?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of men who proceeded overseas after a course of training at one of the training centres administered by my Department, was 2,030 during 1928 and 4,108 during 1929. Of these 1,711 proceeded to Australia and 4,427 to Canada.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: What proportion is represented by those who went to Australia?

Miss BONDFIELD: 1,711 proceeded to Australia.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: I did not hear the answer owing to the noise and confusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY (WAGES).

Major COLVILLE: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour what percentage the average wage of Belgian iron and steelworkers bear to the average wage of British iron and steelworkers?

Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 5th June to a question by the hon. Member for the Hallam Division (Mr. L. Smith), of which I am sending him a copy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that their wages are very much lower as a result of tariffs?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAFFIC NOISES (MOTOR CYCLES).

Mr. DAY: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any special steps are being taken by the police to abate the public inconvenience and nuisance that is caused by traffic noise, especially by the engines of motor cycles; and can he say the number of prosecutions that have taken place for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date against owners of motor cycles who do not conform with police regulations with reference to silencers?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): In the Metropolitan Police District officers are specially detailed for the duty of detecting cases of ineffective silencing or excessive noise caused by motor vehicles. I have no specific information as to the steps taken in other forces, but I think it can be assumed that they are similar. As regards the number of prosecutions in respect of ineffective silencers, statistics are not available for the country as a whole, but in the Metropolitan Police District there were 15,961 prosecutions for this offence during the year ended 28th February, 1930. The large majority of these cases related to motor cycles.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any conference has taken place between the manufacturers of British motor cycles and the Government for the purpose of improving silencers?

Mr. CLYNES: I do not know whether there was a conference with the Home Office, but I will inquire.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the chief constables in the provinces, because the nuisance is really intolerable?

Mr. CLYNES: We recognise the importance of the matter, and will follow it up.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that the manufacturers of motor cycles have done their best to comply with the requirements of the Home Office by making these machines as silent as possible, and that the blame rests with the people who ride them?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (DEPORTATIONS).

Mr. HACKING: 26.
asked the Home Secretary the number of aliens of Russian nationality who have been recommended for deportation, and the number actually deported, during the past 12 months?

Mr. CLYNES: During the 12 months ended 31st May, 1930, 31 persons described as Russians were recommended for deportation. Of them four have left the country after deportation orders had been made against them, and one has been extradited. In three cases
I decided, in view of all the circumstances, not to order deportation, four are still serving their sentences, one is dead, in 13 cases investigations failed to establish Soviet Russian or any alien nationality, and in the remaining five cases the question of the aliens' nationality is under investigation by the authorities of the countries concerned.

Mr. HACKING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difference between the number recommended for deportation and the number actually deported is greater than it was 12 months ago?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, I recognise that there is that difference, but I think the circumstances which I have enumerated in my reply explain it.

Sir K. WOOD: Have any of them been sent back to Russia?

Mr. CLYNES: To give that information I should require notice.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In how many cases in which orders for deportation to Soviet Russia have been made have they not been carried out because Russia refuses to accept the people?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these Russians are classified into White Russians and Red Russians?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDECENT POSTCARDS.

Mr. DAY: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that many shops, especially those in seaside districts, continue to expose for sale indecent postcards, he proposes to introduce legislation governing this subject; and can he say what instructions have been issued to the local police authorities on the matter?

Mr. CLYNES: The police have ample powers under the existing law to deal with the display for sale of postcards which are really indecent, and they would take action in regard to any case which came under their notice. There is no need for special instructions. If my hon. Friend has any information on this subject and will send it to me, I will see that it receives consideration.

Mr. DAY: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to a recent case at Brighton, in which it was stated that the police have not sufficient powers?

Mr. CLYNES: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA.

Sir K. WOOD: 30.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can now announce the Government's decision in relation to the printing and publication in this country of certain seditious and subversive publications?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to state what action the Government have decided to take regarding the attacks upon Great Britain and the Government of India contained in recent issues of the "Daily Worker"?

Mr. CLYNES: In reply to these questions, I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the replies which I have given to previous questions on this subject.

Sir K. WOOD: Having regard to the fact that these publications were issued some weeks ago, will the Home Secretary now indicate when he will be able to make a full statement on the matter?

Mr. CLYNES: I am not able to give any indication as to making a full statement. As I have informed the right hon. Gentleman, the position is being closely watched with a view, if necessary, to action being taken.

Sir K. WOOD: I am not asking about "watching." I am asking when the right hon. Gentleman will come to the decision which he undertook to communicate to the House as regards the prosecution of certain people for seditious publications.

Mr. CLYNES: I have indicated that I cannot now make an announcement as to when the decision will be given.

Mr. THORNE: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the seditious literature published by the party opposite against the Labour party?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (RELIGIOUS BELIEFS).

Mr. THURTLE: 31.
asked the Home Secretary if records are kept by his Department of the religious beliefs of persons imprisoned in His Majesty's gaols?

Mr. CLYNES: Every prisoner on his admission to prison is asked to declare his religious persuasion, and such information as prisoners give is on record at the individual prisons. A return from prisons was collected recently and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I thought from the number of questions as regard Russia that Russia was the only country where they put people in prison in respect of religion.

Oral Answers to Questions — SLATE CLUBS.

Mr. MILLS: 32.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the annual defalcations by secretaries and treasurers of slate clubs and other thrift organisations with annual share out; and whether he contemplates any legislation to prevent these evils?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 12th December last to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Day).

Mr. MILLS: May I ask the Financial Secretary when legislative action is contemplated by the Government in regard to this matter?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the hon. Member will refer to my answer, he will see that I stated that I cannot see any possibility of legislation on this subject that would be likely to be effective.

Mr. MILLS: Could not the question of bonds, such as are entered into by people in other guaranteed employment, be made a condition of the formation of these clubs?

Mr. HACKING: Will the hon. Gentleman consider setting up the 45th committee of inquiry into this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — JURY SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 34.
asked the Home Secretary the number of
local authorities which have forwarded him resolutions suggesting that borough, county and district councillors should be exempted from jury service; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter?

Mr. CLYNES: The number is large, but I have not had time to ascertain it exactly. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Maldon Division (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise) on the 6th March last.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: May I ask if the Home Secretary is giving this matter consideration, in view of the anxiety of the local authorities?

Mr. CLYNES: The matter is under consideration, but, as I have declared previously, I am not able to encourage the hope of early legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

CONVEYANCE OF CHILDREN (COST).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Education the estimated amount per £ which will be added to the rates for the conveyance of children to school in the counties of Somerset, Cornwall and London, or any other large town?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): According to the estimates submitted with the programmes of the respective authorities, the additional cost of conveyance of children to school in the year 1932–33 will represent a rate of, approximately, 2d. in the case of Somerset and .04d. in the case of Cornwall. In London and other urban areas it is not, as a rule, necessary to make arrangements for the conveyance of children as a result of the reorganisation of schools.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Does that not show that very small percentage grants are handicapping the country districts as compared with the towns?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I think that point has already been answered.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the cost of conveying children to school will add at least 2½d. in the £ to the rates in Devonshire; and whether the will consider increasing the Government grant for this purpose to a higher figure than 20 per cent.?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am aware that the preliminary programme submitted by the Devonshire Local Education Authority contains a provisional estimate of £30,000 as the annual cost of conveying children to school when their scheme of reorganisation has been completely carried out, and that, on a basis of an Exchequer grant of 20 per cent., this would represent a rate of some 2½d. in the £. In regard to the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that, while expenditure on this particular service attracts grant at the rate of 20 per cent., it is estimated that 70 per cent. of the total estimated cost of raising the school-leaving age will fall on the Exchequer.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the giving of such small grants encourages local authorities to build very much smaller central schools, whereas larger grants might save money? Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to have small central schools, and would it not be a better policy to give larger grants?

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is the Minister of Education not aware that that policy is penalising the rural areas?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I do not think so. There are other advantages which

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION—1928–29.


—
Produce of 1d. rate per child in average attendance.
Cost per child in average attendance.
Board's grant per child in average attendance.





s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Bournemouth C.B.
…
…
12
8
12
18
2
6
8
9


Blackpool C.B.
…
…
11
2
13
12
11
6
16
4


Leeds C.B.
…
…
4
4
12
18
4
6
14
8


Bradford C.B.
…
…
6
3
14
17
10
7
6
4


Hull C.B.
…
…
3
3
11
16
7
6
12
7


Walsall C.B.
…
…
1
11
11
1
8
6
18
3

they get. By using the grants they are able to abolish a certain number of schools, and make economies in that way.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Would not larger grants induce them to build larger schools?

STATISTICS.

Mr. TINKER: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of schools, provided and non-provided, in England and Wales; the numbers of scholars attending; and the figures, schools and scholars, for each separate denomination who come within the term non-provided?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The figures for which my hon. Friend asks will be found in Table 5 of the statistics published with the report of the Board of Education for the year 1929.

Mr. ARNOTT: 37 and 38.
asked the President of the Board of Education (1) if he will give the most recent figures showing the produce of a penny rate per child at school in the following municipal areas: Bournemouth, Blackpool, Leeds, Bradford, Hull and Walsall;
(2) if he will give the most recent figure showing the total cost per child attending the elementary schools; and the corresponding grants paid per head to the respective authorities by the Board in Bournemouth, Blackpool, Leeds, Bradford, Hull and Walsall?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for which he asks.

Following are the figures:

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (WEST RIDING).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give the name of each authority in the West Riding of Yorkshire area which has erected any houses since 1919 under the various Housing Acts; and will he state, separately for each district, the number of houses erected under each Housing Act and the population of each district in 1911, 1921, and at the present time?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I am sending my hon. Friend a statement containing the information he desires.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of all the local authorities which have erected any houses since 1919?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I should be very glad to do so, but I am afraid it would exhaust the remaining time available for questions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister of Health not aware that three weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) insisted upon the figures being given?

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING REGULATIONS.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether his Department lays down any regulations as to loads to which steel frames in buildings may be subjected; whether he is aware that steel frames are allowed by some local authorities to carry loads or stresses which are prohibited by other local authorities, although steel frames of the same quality, strength, and design are used in both cases; and whether he will recommend local authorities to adopt uniform regulations applicable to identical conditions?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The position outside London is that the use of steel framing in almost all the large urban centres is subject only to a bylaw requiring due stability and proper construction. The actual practice of local authorities is now under investigation by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in a number of areas. In the light of that investigation I propose to consider the possibility of suggesting to local authorities some working guide in deciding what is necessary to secure due stability.

Mr. SAMUEL: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange for the Steel Frame Act of 1909 to be examined by scientific authorities for the purpose of revising its provisions rendered obsolete by the improvements in steelmaking since 1909, so as to correct building regulations under the Act which are now so out of date that local authorities frequently waive them?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Building Research Department have, as the hon. Member was informed on the 27th May, set up a committee to review, among other things, present methods and regulations for the design of steel structures. The Act of 1909 is a London County Council Act applying only to London, and, as was stated in the answer to the hon. Member's question of the 3rd instant it rests with the County Council to propose to Parliament any Measure for bringing it up to date. The County Council have express power in that Act and the Act of 1923 to waive its requirements in so far as they relate to iron and steel construction. I am communicating with the County Council on the subject.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to see that the regulations made in 1909—which are utterly obsolete in view of the researches into steel alloys—are modified?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is precisely because of that that I have entered into the matter with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the London County Council.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, although we have no right to criticise the London County Council in this matter, they are exceedingly backward?

Mr. SAMUEL: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will revise the 1915 regulations governing the use of reinforced concrete so that they may be applicable to the increased strength of cement developed in the last 15 years; and, if not, whether he has any information about the action which local authorities are taking to bring their building regulations up to date in relation to the use of reinforced concrete?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The regulations of 1915 are regulations made by the London County Council and it rests with them
to propose their revision. The County Council obtained power in an Act of 1926 to waive any of the requirements in the regulations, and I am in communication with them on the subject. Outside London the use of reinforced concrete is normally controlled by by-laws, which have almost everywhere been brought up-to-date. As a rule they contain only a simple requirement that a wall built of reinforced concrete shall be of sufficient thickness to secure due stability.

Mr. MILLS: Will the Minister of Health have inquiries made into the very great advances which have been made in the manufacture of cement during the last seven years?

Mr. SAMUEL: Is there not evidence here that the London County Council are using obstructive tactics?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As I have already informed the right hon. Gentleman, I am in communication with them on this subject.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when we may expect a report to the effect that these regulations are no longer necessary?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot say, but that is primarily a matter for the local authorities, and, while I do the best I can by exhortation and advice, I cannot control them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to submit the question of the construction of a Channel tunnel to the free vote of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I can add nothing to what I have already said in reply to questions on this subject.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that, in the matter of the Channel tunnel, the Government have adopted the despised policy of "Safety First"?

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has received any representations on this matter from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)?

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

TEST WORK.

Mr. McSHANE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to allot any time for the discussion of the recent report of the special inquiry into test work?

The PRIME MINISTER: Owing to pressure of Parliamentary business. I should find it difficult at present to allot time for this purpose.

Mr. McSHANE: Is the Prime Minister aware of the seriously unsatisfactory position which that report exhibits, particularly in the rural areas; and can he advise us as to whether any action is going to be taken in order to remove the very serious grievances which still exist with respect to test work?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is primarily a departmental responsibility.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not all the more necessary to have a discussion, having regard to the failure of the Minister of Health to keep his pledges on the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be very glad to have a discussion if the right hon. Gentleman will secure the putting down of a Vote which will enable it to take place,

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the continuance of a system under which stone-breaking and stone-shifting are made a penalty for being an able-bodied unemployed man?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not quite sure how far I am satisfied with any system.

RELIEF.

Mr. MANDER: 57.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the amount of relief being given by public assistance and guardians' committees under the new Local Government Act is in many cases on a much lower scale than the rates awarded by Poor Law unions; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The use of scales of relief is optional and they do not require my sanction. The assistance granted to any applicant should be measured not by scale but by the
applicant's needs. Scales, if adopted, can only be properly used as a general guide, and a comparison of scales would be of little value without knowledge of the manner of their application in individual cases. I have already drawn the attention of local authorities to the principle that, where outdoor relief is given, it should be carefully adapted to the needs of the case and be adequate in amount.

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to see whether it is true that in various cases the scales of relief now are lower than they were before the Act came into operation?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That may be true, but in other cases they happen to be higher. A good deal depends on how the local authorities administer it.

Mr. McSHANE: Notwithstanding the issue of the circular in January to Poor Law authorities, are there not in certain places masses of people, particularly the single young men to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers, who are being excluded as a class from the operation of these scales?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member will give me instances of that I shall be very glad to receive them, because I laid it down quite clearly that local authorities ought not to exclude classes as classes.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY.

Mr. BROOKE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is now prepared to set up a committee of inquiry into the organisation of the woollen and worsted textile industry?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I have been asked to reply to this question. As I have already indicated, the subject is one which under present circumstances is attended by considerable difficulty; and I have not yet reached a decision regarding the question of appointing a committee of inquiry.

Mr. BROOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, now that the workers are being compelled to accept the reduction recommended by the Macmillan
Commission, there is a widespread feeling in the West Riding that a committee of this kind should be set up to investigate all the conditions of the industry?

Mr. GRAHAM: As I have informed my hon. Friend, the position has been complicated by an industrial dispute. My reply merely means that we want to get rid of the question of the industrial dispute; it does not mean that the inquiry which my hon. Friend suggests is necessarily excluded.

Mr. BROOKE: May I ask what is the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the end of the industrial dispute?

Mr. GRAHAM: Of course, it is quite useless to launch an inquiry in an adverse atmosphere, but I think I can say that we can come to a decision on this matter within the course of a very few days now.

COTTON INDUSTRY (INQUIRY).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to indicate any practical action as a result of the recommendations of the committee inquiring into the cotton trade?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I have repeatedly informed the House, as soon as I am in a position to make a statement on this subject it will be made.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is the Prime Minister aware that the prolonged delay in issuing this report is causing serious inconvenience, and is preventing many of the operations of the rationalisation which is the policy of his own Government?

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: In view of the fact that it is now some 12 months since the committee was first appointed, and in view of the very serious situation in Lancashire, will some steps be taken to expedite action arising out of the signature of this report?

The PRIME MINISTER: The delay regarding this report and the decision whether it should be published or not does not mean that there has been any delay in handling the situation. As a matter of fact, that has been the concern of the Government for some months, and action of a very drastic character has been taken. As I explained yesterday or the day before, there are very big questions to be settled as to whether this
report, compiled from information which is very largely confidential, should or should not be published in the interests of the trade itself.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman make some statement as to the action which he has mentioned, which has been taken in Lancashire or which is contemplated?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is one of the points that are under consideration. We have spent some time this morning in considering this and cognate questions.

Mr. HACKING: When did the Cabinet actually receive this report from the sub-committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not more than a week ago, I think. It was at the beginning of the end of last week, as far as I can remember.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARIAN MINISTER'S VISIT.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister the object for which Count Bethlen, Prime Minister of Hungary, has been invited to be the guest of His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Governments have always declined to say why Government hospitality is or is not offered, and I am afraid I must adhere to this rule in the present instance.

Mr. MALONE: May we assume that this visit has no political significance?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the extra responsibilities he has undertaken with regard to the unemployment problem, he proposes to appoint another Minister to lead the House of Commons?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. My hon. and gallant Friend is perhaps mistaken on the point of extra responsibilities.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask when we may know of the reorganisation of the Ministerial duties in connection with unemployment, because many of us on this side are very much interested in the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. and gallant Friend will put a specific question on the Paper, it will be answered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I asked this question yesterday of the Minister of Labour, and got no answer?

Sir K. WOOD: Is there not an additional reason for the appointment of a Deputy Leader of the House?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask who is the Minister that we shall have here before us, and that we may harass? [Laughter.] This is a serious matter. There is one member of the Cabinet who knows perfectly well that it is a very serious matter, because we have harassed him out of his job. I want to know from the Prime Minister who is the Minister that we can ply with questions regarding this serious question. [An HON. MEMBER: "Lloyd George!"] Is it going to be Lloyd George, or who is it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very sorry to restrict my hon. Friend's harassing attentions to any one Minister.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will that satisfy the Labour party?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH DELEGATION).

Mr. MALONE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has appointed the British delegation to the forthcoming Assembly of the League of Nations; and, if so, who are the delegates?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The delegation to the forthcoming Assembly of the League of Nations will be composed as follows:

Delegates.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
The President of the Board of Trade (for part of the time).
Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.
The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health.
Assistant Delegates.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
The hon. Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton).
575
Assistant Delegates.
The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Hamilton).
The hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is not anyone going with this delegation to represent the Treasury on financial matters?

The PRIME MINISTER: Financial matters, as a rule, are not represented at the September meetings of the Assembly. So far as the Treasury side and the industrial side are concerned, they will be represented by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman refresh his memory? I think it has been the practice, certainly in recent years, to include one member in the British delegation with special reference to questions in which the Treasury may be interested. The finance of the League is becoming more and more important.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but we have come to the conclusion that it is waste to send a special delegate for that purpose. The budgetary side of the League can quite well be attended to by anyone who has had very close association with the League and the necessity for expanding it.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to be assured that some member of the delegation will be considered as at any rate having instructions to represent the British Treasury, which also has an interest in the finances of the League, and should at least be enabled to make its views heard within the delegation.

The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that point has not been overlooked, and that those instructions will be given.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Is it not the case that the President of the Board of Trade has been Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of this House?

Oral Answers to Questions — INSURANCE AND PENSIONS LEGISLATION.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether the views of approved societies, insurance committees,
and other representative bodies have been considered in the general survey of national insurance and pensions claims?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member may be assured that all relevant consideration will be before the Cabinet Committee at present engaged on a general survey of the existing insurance and pensions legislation.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: How long has this survey been in progress, and how long is it proposed to continue?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have said before that this is a matter which is going to require continuous consideration from this and other Governments, and, therefore, we cannot name a date.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether the inquiry being held into existing insurance and pensions legislation has now been completed; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The general survey of the existing insurance and pensions legislation has not yet been completed, and I cannot forecast the conclusions of the Cabinet Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SUPERANNUATION ACT).

Mr. THORNE: 53.
asked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities operating the Superannuation Act, 1922; and whether it is his intention to introduce a short Bill making the Act compulsory?

Mr. GREENWOOD: 650 local authorities are operating the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation Act, 1922. In reply to the second part of the question, I cannot say more than that I am very desirous of introducing legislation on the subject as soon as opportunity offers.

Mr. THORNE: Does my right hon. Friend think any useful purpose will be served in urging upon local authorities who have not operated the Act to put it into operation at the earliest date?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am receiving a deputation on that point very shortly, and shall be glad to do all that I can to press the matter on them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 56.
asked the Minister of Health what number of persons are in receipt of old age pensions under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act; and how many of the said persons are at present in employment?

Mr. GREENWOOD: On 31st March there were in Great Britain 1,034,368 persons over the age of 65 in receipt of old age pensions payable under or by virtue of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts. The figure includes wives entitled in right of their husbands' insurance. It is not known how many of these pensioners are at present in employment but, from the number of contribution cards received for the half-year ended December, 1928, from employed persons over the age of 65, it was estimated that 355,000 old age pensioners were in employment at some time during that period.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Do the great mass of these people owe their pensions to the Act passed in 1925 by the late Government?

Miss LEE: Will the Minister increase the amount of the old age pension so as to remove the necessity of men over 65 working?

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUSE DISPOSAL.

Major LLEWELLIN: 58.
asked the Minister of Health whether the departmental committee upon the disposal of refuse has yet made its report to him; and, if not, whether he has any information as to the date when the committee is likely to make its report?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The report has been submitted and is now in the hands of the printers.

Major LLEWELLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that lie will waste as little time as possible in putting the terms of that report into effect at a time when the smells from these dumps are at their worst?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is not my custom ever to waste time.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Have any steps been taken to prevent the dumping
of this refuse into Essex from London, just the same as this country is being made the dumping ground of the world?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES, SCOTLAND (UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS).

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Inland Revenue authorities are assessing local authorities in Scotland which have been receiving unemployment grants for revenue-producing undertakings for Income Tax on the amount of these grants; if he is aware that this results in the Government taking back 4s. in the £ for every £1 of grant received; if he can say whether any warning was given when the grants were offered and promised that such assessments would be made; if so, when and how; if he will further state under what authority these assessments are being levied; and if the Government will take immediate steps, either by a provision in the Finance Bill or otherwise, to have these demands discontinued and any such assessments withdrawn, and any tax so paid refunded to the local authorities?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave on 12th November last to a question on this subject. I am sending him a copy of the question and answer. The grants referred to in the question are included in assessments on local authorities on the ground that they are receipts of a revenue nature, and, as such, are liable to tax under the general provisions of the Income Tax law. The liability in such cases was confirmed by the High Court on 30th April last in the case of the Seaham Harbour Dock Company versus Crook.

Mr. BROWN: Has the Chancellor no statement to make about Government policy on the matter and will he say if any warning was given when the grants were offered and promised that such assessments would be made.

Mr. SNOWDEN: In regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I certainly cannot undertake to deal with
the matter. With regard to the second part of the question, it is not part of the duty of the Inland Revenue to invite attention to the question how particular receipts will be treated under provisions of the Income Tax law which are of general application. On the other hand, they are always ready to give information on any specific question addressed to them, and I think that the local authorities were generally aware of the view taken by the Inland Revenue of their liability under the law.

Mr. BROWN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only difference in the scale granted by the present Government over the previous Government was on this very point of revenue? This has not been done before. The claim is first made with regard to a case of which I have knowledge in 1928, and it is made this year. Does not the Chancellor realise that this means that what the then Lord Privy Seal promised by way of increase is more than taken back by this unexpected decision of the Court?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It must not be assumed that I accept the interpretation placed on this matter by the hon. Member. The liability in such cases has been confirmed by the Courts.

Mr. BROWN: In view of the startling nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

CONSULS AND CONSULAR AGENTS (TREASURY CONCESSION.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Treasury Minute laying down the conditions under which exemptions from taxation have hitherto been given to consuls and consular agents of foreign countries?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The Treasury concession, upon which the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue has been based in regard to the taxation of consuls and consular agents of foreign countries, was set out in two Treasury letters, one issued in 1842 and one in 1854. It is not customary to publish inter-Departmental correspondence of this character and
ordinarily it would be undesirable to do so, but as these letters are nearly a hundred years old I will circulate copies of them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the same time circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the exact reference to the report of the Public Accounts Committee in which they called attention to the non-statutory exemption of consuls and their servants from Income Tax?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That, of course, does not arise out of this question. The most specific reference to this matter was in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee of 1913.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Did that relate specifically to the consular service?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, I never said it did. I said it was a general reference to the undesirability of extra-statutory exemption.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: Does tale supplementary question which the right hon. Member desires to ask arise out of the original question?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It arises directly out of the question.

Mr. BECKETT: Is it in order, after you have called upon a Member to put a question, for Front Bench Members to go on asking supplementary questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: It does not matter whether it is a Front Bench Member or anyone else. Sometimes I call upon an hon. Member without seeing the hon. Member who rises, and in that case I give the latter an opportunity of asking his supplementary question.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the concession given was by a series of letters or whether it was by a Treasury Minute as we were given to understand at the time of the debate, and what were the reasons—if he can tell us—why the production of the document in question was withheld at the time?

Mr. SNOWDEN: There never was a Treasury Minute—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There never was a Treasury Minute except in the imagination of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Sir L. Worthington-Evans).

Sir K. WOOD: You said so. I heard it.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I never said so. I never used the words "Treasury Minute." The right hon. Gentleman has made a baseless insinuation. The words which I used are correctly reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and the words were these:
Some criticism was made by the Public Accounts Committee about the continuance of the relief of Consuls from Income Tax under a Treasury concession"—
and then the right hon. Gentleman intervened and said:
Will the right hon. Gentleman read the Treasury Minute?"—[OFFICIAL EFFORT, 17th June, 1930; col. 62, Vol. 240.]
That was the first reference to a Treasury Minute, and I never used the words "Treasury Minute" during the whole course of the debate. It is no part of my business to correct the imagination of the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate this question now.

Following are copies of the letters:

"Gentlemen,

I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to transmit to you herewith for your information copy of a letter from the Foreign Office dated 5th instant and of its enclosure a letter from the French Ambassador stating the grounds on which he requests that the French Vice-Consul at Liverpool may be exempted from the payment of Income Tax, and I have to state that as it appears from Count Walewski's communication that the French Vice-Consul at Liverpool is forbidden to trade, and that his emoluments are derived directly from the French Government My Lords consider that he is clearly exempt from payment of Income Tax, and that no claim should be made upon him in that respect. My Lords understand that the practice has hitherto been for the officers of Inland Revenue to abstain from assessing Consuls of Foreign States to the Income Tax in respect of salary or other payments made to them from their own Governments or in respect of tonnage on ships of the Country or State for which they act, being an impost authorised
by the foreign Government, or on any fees paid to them by subjects of such Governments, but that Consuls have not been considered exempt from the duty on profits arising from Fees paid to them by British subjects. It appears, however, from Count Walewski's letter that the dues of all kinds received by French Consular Agents are regularly paid over to the French Government, and My Lords consider that if will be better to adopt a general rule for the future in regard to fees received by all Foreign Consuls. My Lords are therefore pleased to authorise you to instruct your officers not to require for the future any returns from Consuls of Foreign States in respect of Fees paid to them in this country in that capacity, whether by subjects of the country for which they act, or by British subjects, it being, however, clearly understood that such exemption shall not apply to Consuls carrying on Trade in this country as relieving them from Income Tax on their commercial profits.

I am, Gentlemen,

Your obedient Servant,

(Sgd.) JAMES WILSON."

Treasury Chambers, 28th July, 1854.

"Gentlemen,

In reference to the correspondence on the subject of the liability of the French Consul-General to assessment under the Income Tax; I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to acquaint you, that those Foreign Consuls, who derive their whole emoluments from the salaries received by them from a Foreign State, do not appear to My Lords to be properly subject to the payment of the Income Tax, or to be required to return their Incomes to the assessors, and I am at the same time to desire, you will govern yourselves accordingly.

I am, Gentlemen,

Your obedient Servant,

(Sgd.) THOS. FREEMANTLE."

Treasury Chambers,

21st September, 1842.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOREIGN PRODUCE (ASSISTED EXPORTS).

Mr. BECKETT: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the extent of subsidy, if any, paid to the exporters of wheat and flour from France, Germany, and the United States; whether this subsidy enables such wheat and flour to be sold in this country at less than its cost of production; and whether he proposes to take any action with regard to this matter?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): As the reply is long, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the reply, it states that any subsidies are granted?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I give full details in the reply.

Following is the reply:

The face value of the import bond given to exporters of wheat in Germany is about 3s. 3d. per cwt. The issue of import bonds in respect of wheat flour exported from that country has been suspended as from 5th June.

In France the position is more obscure, but it appears that as a result of recent legislation exporters of wheat receive a payment of 49 francs per 100 kilos. (equivalent to about 4s. per cwt.) from a special fund. Exporters of flour benefit at an equivalent rate based upon the amount of wheat represented by the flour exported. As regards the United States, I have nothing to add to my reply of the 3rd June to the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey), of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

I have no information as to the average costs of the production of wheat in the three countries concerned which would enable me to reply to the second part of my hon. Friend's question.

With regard to the last part of the question, I can add nothing at present to previous statements by myself and my predecessor on the subject.

CIRCULAR.

Mr. HURD: 63.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he consulted the National Farmers' Union and other bodies representative of agricultural opinion as to the terms of his circular letter of 3rd June addressed to agricultural occupiers; and whether he is aware that the desired information would be more easily furnished by occupiers if the periods chosen were the normal farming years ending with Michaelmas or Lady Day?

Dr. ADDISON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, all inquiries concerning livestock and livestock
products must relate to a year beginning on 4th June seeing that information as to the number of livestock is obtained annually on that date. The remaining inquiries referred to in the letter relate to a year beginning about Michaelmas.

Mr. HURD: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received representations that the information asked for is almost impossible to obtain?

Dr. ADDISON: No, I have not.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what business is to be taken next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: Finance Bill, Committee.

Tuesday: Land Drainage [Lords] Bill, Second Reading.

Wednesday: Finance Bill, Committee.

Thursday: Supply [14th Allotted Day]; Vote to be announced later.

Friday: Land Drainage, Money Resolution, Committee.

On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. E. BROWN: I wish to give notice that I shall call attention to the deduction of Income Tax in respect of local authorities in Scotland receiving unemployment grants on Tuesday night at Eleven o'clock.

Mr. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Education Bill will be taken in Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not next week.

Mr. BALDWIN: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to tell us something about the length of the Session and the business which is to be taken before the House rises?

The PRIME MINISTER: Of course, all announcements of that kind depend, at any rate, a little bit, upon how business is getting on. I was hoping that we might have got a little further than we have with our business. At the same time, I hope that some time next week I may be in a position to survey the work
which has been accomplished during the week and the work which we shall ask the House to do before we rise preparatory to our summer holidays.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Finance Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

BILLS REPORTED.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

DARLINGTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Nottingham Corporation Bill (Certified Bill),

London Midland and Scottish Railway (No. 1) Bill (Certified Bill), with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Lancaster Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Nottingham Corporation Bill (Certified Bill),

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.

London Midland and Scottish Railway (No. 1) Bill (Certified Bill),

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 17th June.]

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 19.—(Provision as to collection of tax where appeal pending against assessment.)

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, in page 16, line 40, to leave out the words "appears to the special commissioners not to be," and to insert instead thereof the words "is not."
The special commissioners, as hon. Members know, are the body who will consider the taxpayer's case. The Finance Bill proposes that they shall say how much of the assessment against which a taxpayer appeals is not in dispute. This would lead to the inspector of taxes approaching the special commissioners with regard to settling the matter before the taxpayer's case is actually heard by the special commissioners, but the taxpayer would not have similar rights. This is a most undesirable position, and I am moving this Amendment with the object of removing the difficulty. I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be prepared to accept this Amendment, and therefore I need not waste the time of the Committee. If I hear from him that he is not going to do so, I hope I shall have an opportunity later of further arguing the merits of the Amendment. May I have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I am unable to accept this Amendment. The purpose of this Clause is to assimilate the practice of the special commissioners to that of the general commissioners. In the Finance Act of 1926 a Section was incorporated which dealt with the payment of that part of the assessment for Income Tax which was not in dispute. Up to that time Income Tax payers and also Super-taxpayers, if there was any part of the assessment in dispute, could withhold payment of the whole amount until an appeal had been determined. That led to the postponement of the payment
of a very considerable amount of Income Tax, and, under the Finance Act of 1926, which was passed by the late Tory Government, it was provided that that part of the Income Tax assessment which was not in dispute could not be withheld, but should be paid. The purpose of this Clause is to assimilate the law in regard to assessments for Surtax to the law in regard to the assessments for Income Tax, and I do not think any objection can be raised to it. As a matter of fact, the number of cases may not be so large as the number of cases dealt with by the 1926 Act of the late Government, but in the case of Surtax it often means a larger sum and the amount of revenue postponed payment is very considerable. It is also provided that if after the amount in dispute has been settled, and it is found necessary, there is to be a readjustment. The whole purpose of the Clause is not to allow a person assessed for Surtax to withhold for an indefinite period payment of the amount which is admittedly due. I am quite sure the proposal will commend itself to the Committee as did a similar proposal with regard to Income Tax which commended itself to the late Government.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said nothing whatever about the Amendment. With great respect, I submit that he has misread his brief. In the last lines of this Clause he will find the words:
or any tax overpaid shall be repaid.
I submit that the right hon. Gentleman has entirely overlooked the fact that this Clause presupposes that tax has been already overpaid and that the Special Commissioners were wrong in their assessment. We Shall require some explanation of this matter. Earlier in the Clause we have the words:
as appears to the special commissioners not to be in dispute shall be collected.
It appears that we are going to have an interim decision in favour of the special commissioners—a decision fixed by themselves. They may be wrong, in which case they will repay what has been overpaid. What position are we in as regards the Income Tax payer? Why should the taxpayer be out of money which later on it is found he is not due to pay? In the case of a Super-tax payer, he may be put to some consider-
able expense to find the money he has paid in. If you put a man to that expense by arbitrarily demanding him to pay something which later on it is found he is not liable to pay, there is no provision made to repay him the interest on the money or refund him for the trouble he has been put to in getting money which has been wrongfully taken from him. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain these points, and also to deal with the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I did not suppose that my reply would be satisfactory to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Samuel). The other day he told us that he had spent the whole afternoon trying to understand a very simple proposal in the Finance Bill which was perfectly obvious to every other hon. Member of the Committee.

Major COLFOX: Do not be offensive.

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not mind. The right hon. Gentleman can be as rude as he likes; he does not trouble me.

Mr. SNOWDEN: This Clause follows precisely the provision in the Finance Act of 1926, and any objection which the hon. Member for Farnham has would apply equally to the provision passed by the last Conservative Government. If he will compare this Clause with Section 25 of the Finance Act of 1926, he will find that the words are identical with the exception of "special commissioners" in this Clause and "general commissioners" in the Act of 1926. The hon. Member says why should Income Tax payers be called upon to pay something which later on may be decided ought not to have been paid? The answer to that is the converse. Why should Income Tax payers be able to withhold payment of practically the whole amount when only a small proportion of it has been left over for decision? After an appeal has been heard and determined, and it is found that a small alteration is necessary which will involve the refunding of some part of the tax which has been paid, the Clause provides that repayment shall be made.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I refrained from arguing the case for my Amendment because I am anxious that the work of the Committee should proceed. As far as I am personally concerned, the Section in the Act of 1926 does not trouble me at all, and if the Conservative Government
had been in office now I should have moved this Amendment just the same and argued just as strongly for its acceptance. I listened with interest to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his explanation about money which should be paid to the Treasury and which is withheld. I want to put the other side of the question. I have in mind the case of one of my constituents, where something more than the proper amount was paid. When it came to a question of readjustment there was a considerable amount of trouble in getting repayment. To get money out of the Treasury is like trying to get butter out of a dog's mouth. Where there is a dispute and the money is not paid in the Treasury can settle the matter very quickly. They are not at all backward in making their demands and in pressing the taxpayer to pay whatever amount has been settled as the correct amount. We here are the custodians for the taxpayer, and we cannot always accept the Treasury officials' point of view. I am certain that if the right hon. Gentleman were in Opposition, he would take the same line as we are taking now. This was inserted in the 1926 Act simply for the purposes of the officials who have to handle these things at the Treasury. As I said before, we are here to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer, and from the experience I have had in the case mentioned and many others, I am satisfied that it is A very unwise thing, indeed, to pay money over to the Treasury when some time or other we may have to ask for it back. The trouble sometimes to get it back is not worth while. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any other form of payment where you have to pay in advance with the object, after the adjustment, of receiving something back? Is there also any other section of the community which is allowed to exact payment by deduction? There are cases in my mind where over-payment was proved, and the Treasury kept the money as a set-off against any other account. That may seem a simple way of dealing with the matter, but it is not the British legal way, and it is because of the enormous trouble in getting repayment when these cases are settled that I appeal to the Committee to support the Amendment.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The person concerned will only pay that part which has been settled by the special commissioners. [Interruption.] It has already been settled by the special commissioners. If it were not so, there would be no amount remaining in dispute, and the case which the hon. Member mentioned, I am quite sure, would not be covered by this Clause. It is quite evident that the case the hon. Member had in mind was an ordinary repayment case, and not a question where some part of an assessment was under appeal to the general commissioners or special commissioners. The hon. Member said, "Why should a man be called upon to pay something that is not due?" This question does not arise as regards the undisputed amount of the assessment. As hon. Members are aware, there is always a very considerable amount of arrears, and there is no doubt—I have not the exact figures—that a considerable part represents tax on the undisputed parts of assessments under appeal.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: With great respect, I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer discussed the Clause and did not address himself to the Amendment. I agree with a great deal of what he said about the Clause, though I think there is some objection to it which we may have to urge later on. He did not, however, address himself to this particular Amendment, which deals with the question of what is the amount which is to be paid over. The Clause says that the amount which is to be paid over is such amount
as appears to the special commissioners not to be in dispute.
The Amendment says that the amount which is to be paid over is the amount which "is not in dispute." The difference is that the second proposition is a question of simple fact, whereas the first is a matter of the opinion of one party which is to be held to be conclusive. Of these two propositions, the second appears to be more reasonable. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with that?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have already dealt with it, not merely generally but specifically. As it appears in the Clause, the amount is that which "appears to the special commissioners not to be in dispute." The hon. Member's Amendment deals with the amount which
"is not in dispute." Supposing we put in these words, who is going to determine what is the amount in dispute? Is it to be determined by the taxpayer himself or by the special commissioners? It can only be determined by the special commissioners. There is no other practical way of dealing with it.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is that not exactly the point I made clear? Here you are allowing the special commissioners to fix the amount as it appears to them. Why? Very well, if the Chancellor will not accept the words of my hon. Friend, let us put in some words to this effect:
as has been agreed between the taxpayer and the special commissioners.
The special commissioners can have no grievance, because if they do not agree with the taxpayer as to the amount that is already due, then they are in no worse position than they were before the dispute took place. Here you are faced with this position, that the special commissioners are to be judges in their own case, and to say that a certain amount is not in dispute and is due to them, and they are going by force and violence to say, "You must pay that, and any reparation will be made good in the end." If the Chancellor will pause for a moment and think over the matter, he will find that it is a case with the Revenue of, "Heads I win, tails you lose," which is not fair to the taxpayer.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: I quite agree with my hon. Friend that the special commissioners are to be judges in their own case. They assess the amount which they consider not in dispute, and the taxpayer has to accept their decision, whether right or wrong. Why should not the taxpayer have some share or say in the matter as to what is the amount in dispute? Let us assume, for instance, that the special commissioners say that £950 of a certain sum is not in dispute, and later it is found that only £500 ought to have been considered not in dispute, and in the meantime the taxpayer has been kept from money which he ought to have. When the money comes back to him, he ought to be credited with interest on the money which has been laid aside in the Treasury. On the other hand, if it so happens that no sum of money has been set aside in any dispute, there is no objection to the tax-
payer being debited at the rate of 5 per cent., say, for the use of the money.
This presses more hardly on people in industrial enterprises, because the money may not be in gold but in machinery, and, at the present time, when we have depression in industry, the taxpayer cannot afford to find more money for taxes than he should be called upon to find up to the limit. Only yesterday the Prime Minister made the plea that there was a world depression. In the West Riding of Yorkshire we are realising that to the very full. There they are finding the greatest difficulty in meeting the demands of the tax collector, and it is wrong that the Treasury should have the power of saying to the taxpayer, "No matter what you say, a certain amount shall be assessed and paid immediately," and he has no right of appeal against it. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises that that in many cases would create real hardship in the case of many industrial concerns who are having hard times. It is unfair to call upon them to pay out money which later on might have to be refunded. In some cases the special commissioners might say that out of £1,000 a sum of £950 was not in dispute. Then the taxpayer might go to his bank, where he might already have a heavy overdraft, and quite conceivably his bankers might not grant any further accommodation. I hope that the Chancellor will take these difficulties of the taxpayer into account. There should be some give-and-take in this matter. In my opinion, the heavy hand of officialdom should not be allowed to have its own way in this matter. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will vote for the Amendment.

Mr. LEIF JONES: It seems to me that the Mover of the Amendment and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are attaching undue importance to the wording of this Clause. As I understand, the dispute has not taken place with regard to Super-tax or Surtax but with regard to Income Tax assessment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In any case, there is no dispute as to the assessment on part of the income. If there is any Super-tax due on that part of the income, it is a known quantity. That being so, the change proposed is that in future that part of the Super-tax which is based
upon the part of the income accepted both by the taxpayer and by the special commissioners, shall be paid. I see no objection to that. It seems to be quite a right course, and I submit that both the Mover of the Amendment and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are attaching undue importance to these words.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) has not taken into account that in many of the cases the Income Tax has already been paid. There is no dispute about the Income Tax in this case. A man might have £20,000 a year or £5,000 a year of income entirely from invested securities, and in that case the Income Tax has been taken before he receives the income. Therefore the question of Income Tax to which the right hon. Gentleman attaches such importance does not arise.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The whole of the case put forward by the Opposition on this Clause is a mare's nest and shows a complete misunderstanding of the position. The Clause is perfectly simple. In certain cases the taxpayer disputes an assessment and puts in a claim. In some cases it may be an assessment for Income Tax and in other cases an assessment for Super-tax or Surtax. When he disputes the assessment he makes a statement showing the particular part of the assessment with which he disagrees. The bulk of the Income Tax cases come before the general commissioners, who have before them the statement of the taxpayer that he disputes the claim in one particular. It was decided in the Finance Act of 1926 that that dispute as to one particular in the assessment should not invalidate the whole of the claim to Income Tax. The general commissioners were in possession of the statement by the taxpayer that he disputed such and such a matter, and what the Finance Act of 1926 properly provided was that where there was such a dispute the general commissioners, having before them the facts as represented by the taxpayer, should decide which part was in dispute and which part was not. The Act of 1926 quite properly said that the taxpayer should be called upon to pay that part of the Income Tax which did not appear to the commissioners to be in dispute. If
you said, "That part of the assessment which was not in dispute," I myself think that it would amount to the same thing, but I will show hon. Members why I think it is better to put it as it is put in the Clause.
The general commissioners, as I have already said, have the statement of the taxpayer before them, and they surely are in a position to say what part appears to them not to be in dispute. That is what the Act of 1926 said and that is what hon. Members opposite, when they were on this side of the Committee, thought was a reasonable and proper position. It is a perfectly simple matter, and I cannot see the smallest objection to applying the same method in this instance. The Government are now merely proposing to do with regard to the special commissioners what was done in the Act of 1926 with regard to the general commissioners and to apply it, first of all, to cases of ordinary Income Tax where the assessment has been by the election of the taxpayer removed from the general commissioners to the special commissioners in cases of ordinary Income Tax, and also to those cases of Super-tax or Surtax which come before the special commissioners. The Clause provides that in those cases the special commissioners, having before them the statement of the taxpayer, saying what part of the assessment he disagrees with, and where he finds fault with the assessment, shall decide on the parts which are not in dispute. It provides for the collection of such part of the tax as appears to them not to be in dispute. [HON. MEMBERS: "AS appears to them!"] Well, someone must make a decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not the taxpayer?"] But, as I have already pointed out, the special commissioners have the application of the taxpayer before them showing what he regards as being in dispute.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: How can a dispute continue if both parties agree? The Financial Secretary has said that the amount which is to be demanded is the amount arising from that portion of the assessment about which the taxpayer has no grievance, and if he has no grievance it is not in dispute. But why should it be left to one side to say what they think is in dispute?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It must in the last resort be left to some person to put down what is the amount and the special commissioners have the statement of the taxpayer before them. They are not people who are going to act in a manner quite contrary to all commonsense. If they did, there would probably be some machinery to pull them up, but it will be clear from the taxpayer's statement that part of the assessment is not in dispute and I cannot see how you can introduce any more comprehensive machinery for dealing with the matter. The commissioners make an assessment and the taxpayer says, "As far as certain things are concerned I dispute this assessment." From that it will appear to the special commissioners that, say, items "A," "B" and "C" are not in dispute but that "D" is the one thing to which the taxpayer objects. That is the point which it is proposed to deal with in this Clause, and it is exactly the same position as that dealt with in the Act of 1926. It is perfectly clear that someone must make a final statement. What we are doing here is precisely what was done in the previous Act, and I submit that to do it otherwise would leave the question in doubt.

Mr. G. GIBSON: If you have a case in which there are items "A," "B," "C" and "D" and the special commissioners say that "A," "B" and "C" are not in dispute but that "D" is in dispute, it follows that the man must pay his tax upon "A," "B" and "C" and that there is no appeal. Where is the fair treatment to the man?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: But there is no dispute about those items.

Mr. GIBSON: That is what the special commissioners say, but not what the man says.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No, the assessment has been made and the man has already said, "As far as 'D' is concerned, I dispute your assessment." Then the special commissioners can say that it appears to them that "A," "B" and "C" are not in dispute.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I do not think that the Financial Secretary's explanation has helped the Committee in coming to a conclusion. In the first place it differs from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer said that there would be no difficulty about this Clause because as regards the particular item for which immediate application to the taxpayer could be made, it would relate to those cases in which the taxpayer had agreed and settled the matter with the commissioners. Anyone with experience of Income Tax cases knows that these words "agreed and settled" have a very serious significance in this connection. Directly you come to an agreement under certain conditions, the amount is immediately due and if it is not forthcoming, proceedings for recovery can be taken. What was the statement of the Financial Secretary? It was not at all to the effect that the commissioners and taxpayer had come to an agreement and settlement in these cases. The hon. Gentleman made reference to the statement which the taxpayer himself puts forward when he makes an appeal. Anyone familiar with these cases knows that there is a great difference between the case of a man filling in a form and making an appeal and a case of what is called agreement and settlement. There is an entirely different set of circumstances.
I submit that there is a serious misunderstanding as to the meaning of this Clause between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary. The Financial Secretary in the end was, I think, forced to rely upon the only point which he thought would convince the Committee when he gave as his principal reason for this Clause the fact that some such words, are in a previous enactment. In the first place, that previous enactment dealt only with much smaller cases and much smaller amounts than those affected by this Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself I think made that admission. But even if it were not so, the Committee are entitled on this occasion to discuss this matter on its merits and I do not think that the Financial Secretary has yet seen the main objection which we put forward from the point of view of the taxpayer to this Clause. The main objection to the Clause lies in these words: "as appears to the special commissioners." I do not say that I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), but if we
said simply that the amount which is not in dispute shall then become recoverable, even that would be a much better proposition than the proposition in the Clause.
These words, "as appears to the special commissioners," prevent the taxpayer from going to the court or anywhere else and challenging what the commissioners say as to what is or is not in dispute. Once the commissioners say that it appears to them that there is no dispute over a particular item, the taxpayer is finished. He cannot move in the courts to say that a, mistake has been made or that there has been some unfortunate oversight in his case. He is precluded, because the Legislature has definitely laid it down that as long as it "appears to the special commissioners" he cannot interfere. I do not want to argue the Amendment dealing with the question of an appeal, except to say that that there is no appeal, and, therefore, when you once have these fatal words "as appears to the special commissioners," you put the taxpayer, so to speak, "in the cart." If there is no question of a dispute on a particular item, it is justice to say, as regards that particular item, that the money shall be payable immediately, but it is very unfair to say that the commissioners shall be the sole judge as to whether or not there is a dispute.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I want to put a particular case. Take the case of an income of a man who last year was taxed on £5,000, plus X. He agrees that £5,000 was his income, but about X there is a dispute. He pays Income Tax on £5,000. When Surtax has to be assessed on an income of £5,000 plus X, it is known that the Surtax is due on 26,000, but what is not known is how much Surtax is due on X, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer claims the right to collect the Surtax on the £5,000. I understand that that is the meaning of the Clause, and I think he has a right to collect it, but if that is so, the words "as appears to the special commissioners not to be in dispute" mean exactly the same as the words "is not in dispute." If my interpretation is right, we are dealing with a known figure, on which the individual has probably paid Income Tax, and is prepared to pay Surtax, and I submit that that is the correct interpretation.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne
(Mr. Leif Jones) takes the case of a man assessed at £5,000. Formerly a taxpayer could not be required to pay any tax unless his appeal against the assessment had been determined. His notice of appeal will now show the extent to which he disputes the assessment, and the amount not in dispute will be that part of the income which is not included in the terms of the appeal. In this way, therefore, it will be apparent to the special commissioners or the general commissioners, as the case may be, what is the amount of tax now to be paid on the undisputed amount.

Mr. JONES: To the taxpayer, it is in fact a known figure.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The discussion on this Amendment really raises the whole Clause, and in view of that fact, I do not propose to call subsequent Amendments on this Clause for discussion. We might have a discussion on this Amendment, and then I should be prepared to put subsequent Amendments raising special points, if desired, in order that they may be divided upon, but a full discussion on this Amendment raises the same principle as all the Amendments to this Clause.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I imagine that that is a convenient way of dealing with it, Mr. Dunnico, if you allow those who are moving the Amendments on which they wish to have a Division to make a short statement of the meaning of their Amendments.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The whole of the Amendments raise the same principle. I am quite prepared to put the Amendment now before the Committee, the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson)—in line 40, after the word "to," to insert the words "the person assessed and'—and one in the name of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne)—in page 17, line 6, to add a proviso.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: I want to move an Amendment to an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne).

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not selected that Amendment.

Sir A. POWNALL: I was going to move an Amendment to the Amendment to the effect that it should be the general commissioners rather than the special commissioners to whom the matter in dispute should be referred. I hope I shall have an opportunity of moving it.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The explanation of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seemed to be based on the Clause as amended, and to ignore the words which have caused all the trouble, namely, "as appears to the special commissioners." These words raise a very important question of principle. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer approve of the application of a principle of that sort to the ordinary law of the land as affecting creditor and debtor? Take the case of "A" suing "B" for a sum of money, a portion of which "B" knew he would be compelled to pay. Would the right hon. Gentleman allow "A" to fix the sum that "B" had eventually got to pay at so much as appeared to "A" to be the right sum? That surely would not be sound. That would be a remarkable state of affairs, and there is no reason why the Crown should be in a better position than the ordinary creditor in the courts of law.
The difference between the general and the special commissioners is quite an appreciable difference, particularly in view of the large sum of money that would be involved, and I cannot see why, after all this discussion, the word "is" should not be equally satisfactory as the words "as appears." If there is a doubt about the amount due, it is possible for a third party to settle it. It is not a question of what appears, but of what is, and there are various ways of settling the difference rather than relying upon the tender mercies of the commissioners. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will prove slightly more elastic, because the principle involved is very important, and it is our duty to safeguard the taxpayer from any unfairness.

Sir BASIL PETO: The case made by the right hon. Member for Cambourne (Mr. Leif Jones), that there is very little difference between the Amendment and the Clause as it stands, could only be supported by his giving a hypothetical case of tax on an undisputed income of £5,000, with a certain additional income
in dispute. When you state a special case of that sort, it becomes quite clear that in such a case there would be no dispute between the special commissioners and the taxpayer, because from his own hypothesis the right hon. Gentleman assumes that the greater part of the income was not in dispute at all. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury took exactly the same case. He asked us not to press the Amendment, because, he said, there was nothing in it, and because the taxpayer would have made his statement, and his statement would all be agreed with the special commissioners, and therefore everyone would be living happily together and the lion lying down together with the lamb, with no possibility of any injustice being done. But the whole hypothesis of this Clause is that there may be cases in which there is liable to be a dispute as to what is the amount that is in dispute.

Mr. LEIF JONES: The Clause is confined to those cases in which there is an appeal pending.

Sir B. PETO: I agree that an appeal is pending, but the special commissioners may say that the appeal is limited and can only affect a certain small part of the income, which the right hon. Gentleman calls X, whereas the taxpayer may think the appeal may cover a much larger part of his income.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Baronet must not call X small. It may be indefinitely large.

Sir B. PETO: The whole point is that the right hon. Gentleman assumes that a hard and fast line in every case is agreed between the taxpayer and the special commissioners as a thing which is not in dispute, and that it is only what is beyond that line that can possibly be in dispute. If so, the Clause is wrongly conceived altogether, because it refers to "Income Tax under Schedule D, to Super-tax, or to Surtax," and the right hon. Member seems to be under the impression that we are dealing only with a claim for Income Tax. It is clear that the words of the Clause mean that there is doubt and room for argument in the matter.
Let us then consider what is the difference between putting in the simple words "is not in dispute" and the
complicated words "as appears to the special commissioners not to be in dispute." There is this fundamental difference, that a thing cannot either be or not be unless there is someone to settle whether it is or is not, and those words therefore imply agreement between the taxpayer and the commissioners as to what is or is not in dispute. That raises the further question of whether there should or should not be an appeal, but, quite apart from that, we want words put in here which will show clearly that the taxpayer is only liable for the immediate payment of such part of the tax as is not in dispute, that implies the part that is agreed between the taxpayer and the special commissioners not to be in dispute, and that is an entirely different proposition.
Far from agreeing that this is a small matter of words, I think it is a vital matter, and the only argument that the Chancellor of the Exchequer put before us, but which he thought was an absolutely crushing one—I agree that, from the political point of view, it had great weight—was that he said he had copied the words from a Clause which the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) put into a Bill relating to Income Tax in 1926. That only proves one thing, and that is that we in Opposition are better watchdogs of the interests of the Income Tax payers than the right hon. Gentleman was when he sat on this side of the House. He ought to be crying "Peccavi! I was an unwatchful and unmindful protector of the interests of the taxpayers when the right hon. Member for Epping was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I did not see the danger of these words, but now I am going to do better. I am not going to accept the vicious Clause that appeared in the Act of 1926 and to insert any words of that kind in any Measure that I bring forward, being a fair, just and honourable Chancellor of the Exchequer, holding even-handed the scales of justice between the taxpayers and the Treasury." On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman says: "Because the right hon. Member for Epping made a grave and, I think, a heinous offence in the Act of 1926, I am going to copy his bad example. If I leave the matter entirely to the decision of the special commissioners it means that in some
cases I may get sums into the Treasury which I could not possibly get if I confined my Clause to matters which are actually not in, dispute between the taxpayers and the special commissioners." Far from this being a trivial matter and one which we ought not to press, we feel that the taxpayers will realise that we in Opposition to-day are mindful of their interests and that we are not going to hand them over, if we can help it, without the chance of having any question raised other than is covered by the words,
appears to the special commissioners not to be.

Captain BOURNE: I have listened with great care to the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I cannot understand what objection there can be to the acceptance of the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that we are contending against the whole of this Clause. That is not so. No one has any objection to taxation being levied where the amount is not in dispute between the commissioners and the taxpayer.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is not a question of a dispute between the commissioners and the taxpayer, but a dispute between the Inland Revenue and the taxpayer. If we were to have said, as the Royal Commission suggested, that the Inland Revenue should make the decision, there might be a complaint. The commissioners are the tribunal which arbitrates betwen the taxpayer and the tax collector and this Clause gives to this tribunal the decision in the matter.

Captain BOURNE: I think the Financial Secretary is making his own case worse. He says that the commissioners are the tribunal who are to give the decision and he is seeking to give them power to make a decision at their own option as to how much is in dispute. The whole point is, that if the commissioners are to give the decision the taxpayer should have an opportunity of appearing before them to argue as to the amount in dispute. We think that the Clause in itself is reasonable but we desire the Amendment to be made, and we cannot see why there should be objection to the Amendment. If the taxpayer sends in a return under Schedule "D" and certain
items are in dispute, and the commissioners are to abide by that and to say that such and such an amount of the tax is in dispute, that is a matter of fact.
Why not have the matter stated quite distinctly in the Clause? I dislike intensely the habit of using words that are vague, when a perfectly straightforward statement of fact would meet the case. I cannot think why this Government of all Governments should wish to put phrases into the Finance Bill which ultimately are interpreted in the Law Courts in a way different from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says was their intention. We have had case after case in the courts where decisions have been given which were totally contrary to the opinions given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day, and I think it is our duty to protest every time when one of these vague phrases is used in a Finance Bill, especially when the representatives of the Government cannot produce one sensible argument in favour of their own case. The only argument that has been used in favour of the Government case is that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) put in these words in the Act of 1926. I would remind the Committee that when the Finance Bill of 1926 went through the mind of the House was very much occupied with other and more serious matters that were happening outside; even so, I blame myself and other members of my party who were in the House at that time that we did not spot this evil Clause in the Finance Bill and protest against it.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: I should hesitate to take up the time of the Committee did I not think that we are now discussing a matter which is of great importance to us as custodians of the interests of the taxpayers, on whose behalf we desire to make an equitable arrangement. In this case the special commissioners are, as it were, to be the arbitrators between two men having a dispute, and one of the two parties is to be able to communicate with the arbitrators and discuss the matter with them, while the other party is not to have that opportunity.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is not the case.

Mr. SMITH: The taxpayer has not the same opportunity as the Inland Revenue in arguing the matter with the special commissioners. That is where the lack of equity arises under this Clause. I fail to see why the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot agree to the Amendment.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: You have stated, Mr. Dunnico, that my Amendment—in page 16, line 40, after the word "to," to insert the words "the person assessed and"—covers a good deal of the discussion which has already taken place. The object of my Amendment is to give the assessed person an opportunity of deciding what really the dispute is about. The taxpayer is more and more coming under the purview of the Treasury. It is important that the Treasury should have the good will of the taxpayers, but if we make the taxpayers feel that they are subject to harshness or injustice it will be far more difficult and expensive to collect taxes. What makes my Amendment more important is that taxation is gradually increasing and there seems to be little prospect of any diminution in the near future. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave the Committee to understand that there was practically no change proposed. There must be some change, or this Clause would not have been introduced. If new machinery is required for the purpose of collecting these taxes, the new machinery ought to give the taxpayer fair play. The whole of this Clause turns on the case of a dispute arising. Why should you leave the taxpayer out in the final decision as to what the dispute is about? The taxpayer may have stated what deduction he wants to come out of the claim. The commissioners are not the people who initiate the dispute. The taxpayer is the person who initiates the dispute, and consequently he is the party who ought to know what the dispute is about. Why should he be left out of the question when the commissioners come to the final decision as to what part of the claim is concerned in the dispute. As the Clause stands, there is no provision to safeguard the assessed person.
Coming to the argument used by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the commissioners may not agree that the dispute covers the scope believed to be
covered by the assessed person. They may say that the dispute covers very much less than is believed by the assessed person. The assessed person has not the technical knowledge and is not able to use technical language, and it is likely that he may use words which may have double meanings and double constructions. I do not ask that the taxpayers should have any say in the final determination of the appeal—that is not in question—I merely ask that the taxpayer should be able to decide with the commissioners what the dispute is about. If my Amendment is not to be accepted, disputes will arise not as to whether any particular payment is just, but what the dispute is about. The case for the Amendment is all the stronger because ender the Clause the commissioners are entitled to take that part of the tax which appears not to be in dispute. They need not be certain as to what the disput is about. They may think that the dispute is about one part of the tax, although it may be about a different part of the claim. The taxpayer may be claiming a great deal more or a great deal less than the commissioners imagine. Therefore, unless we allow the taxpayer and the commissioners to agree in the first place as to what the dispute is about, the Clause is bound to lead to a great deal of recrimination and confusion.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted my Amendment., giving the taxpayer an equal right with the commissioners to say what the dispute is about, I do not believe that it would lead to evasion. The Exchequer could not possibly lose any money permanently by the acceptance of my Amendment. The commissioners are evenually going to decide what amount of tax is payable. The Amendment merely would have the effect of leaving upon the mind of the taxpayer a sense of fair play, and I believe that with a sense of fair play a great deal of the smooth working of our Income Tax law depends, and that without a sense of fair play the difficulties of the Treasury will be increased a hundred fold. I do not understand why this Clause has been inserted in a Finance Bill. I do not think that it has anything to do with a Finance Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the Clause as a whole.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: It is apparent, Mr. Dunnico, that you were right when you said that this simple Amendment strikes at the root of the whole Clause. The whole quarrel that we have with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that we want to put in the words "is not," and to leave out the words "appears to the special commissioners not to be." We have heard arguments in support of the longer phrase, and I think the fundamental one and the one with which we quarrel most was given by the Financial Secretary when he stated that the tribunal had to make the decision, that it was not the taxpayer or the Inland Revenue, but the tribunal. To my mind, as a lawyer of a few years' experience, that contains the most vicious principle of all. I suppose it is contended that these special commissioners form a court and base their procedure on fair rules of evidence and fair listening to both sides of the question. But, if they first form an interim decision without hearing evidence, I can only say that it is a very bad beginning to their procedure and is bound to lead to a great deal of dissatisfaction. I would call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the very wide power that is given to the special commissioners. The Financial Secretary said it means merely that they are accepting the statement of the Income Tax payer. If it does, then surely the words is not" would do just as well, because both sides would agree, and it would he a question of fact. If they made a mistake, the Income Tax payer might be able to call attention to the mistake. The words in the Clause,
appears to the special commissioners not to be",
makes the opinion of the special commissioners absolutely conclusive. The special commissioners, or the Revenue authorities, wish to have these words in, because it gives absolute conclusiveness to their opinion. We do not want the decision of the special commissioners to be prejudged in any way. It is grossly unfair and unconstitutional if we are going to place any weight on the judicial decision of this court.
I confess I cannot follow the narrow meaning put on the Clause by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). It seems to me to be expressed in the widest terms. The right hon.
Gentleman produced as an argument that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), in his 1926 Act, had used exactly this language and this form. But there is a considerable difference, in degree if not in principle, between Income Tax and Super-tax, because Super-tax involves much larger incomes and more complicated considerations.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Every assessment for Surtax or Super-tax is based on a previous assessment for Income Tax.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I have not overlooked that fact, but when Income Tax rises to the Surtax stage then it is more complicated. That is what I wished to say. Take the case of a taxpayer who receives a royalty income from America. There most complicated issues arise, and it is very difficult to say what is in dispute and what is not in dispute. I think it is unfair and unwise to give the special commissioners this power. The taxpayer, if he is loyal and patriotic, will wish to bring that income into this country; but, if he is to have every difficulty put in his way and his position pre-judged, it will not encourage him to do the right thing in the matter. Another difficulty arises because Super-tax no longer exists. Surtax is a new name given to Super-tax. That proves that this is really a retrospective Clause, because it is dealing with old cases of Super-tax now in dispute. I put this matter before a lawyer who has perhaps the most experience of all lawyers with regard to Income Tax matters. When he read the words
such part of the tax, as appears to the special commissioners
he said that it must mean there had been a previous hearing. I pointed out that it probably might not mean that, and be said then it meant prejudging the issue without hearing the taxpayer. I do appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this very simple Amendment, which would produce general agreement in support of this Clause. If he accepts it, it is a good Clause, but, if he does not, it is a most oppressive and unjust Clause.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I would like to say a few words in support of the argument of the hon. Member who has just sat down. It seems to me the Committee would be satisfied if it could accept the language of the Financial
Secretary as representing not only the intentions of the Government but also what would be the working of this Bill. If we could be assured that it was the claim which was put in by the taxpayer himself which was to decide what the scope of the dispute was afterwards to be, and therefore what money was to be paid, that would be all well and good. But, if that be so, there can be no possible objection to accepting the Amendment. If these words mean anything at all, they contemplate that, first, this document may be put in making certain objections to the assessment. Then an interim assessment supposed not to be in dispute is laid upon the taxpayer which he is required to pay at once. Then the taxpayer says, "No, this is in dispute," but the commissioners say, "It does not matter, because it does not appear to us to be in dispute." That is a most Gilbertian situation. It raises the question whether what the taxpayer says is to be considered. The taxpayer who makes the objection should be allowed to have his objection heard. It may appear to the commissioners on a cursory examination not to be a serious dispute, but, after all, he has the right to be heard. What appears at first sight not to be a serious dispute may, when it comes before a higher tribunal, be something very serious. These words are not merely making the special commissioners judges, but preliminary judges on some matter which needs further consideration. I ask the Government to accept this Amendment, and thereby to put our doubts at rest.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has saved me a great deal of trouble, because he has to some extent put the point which I particularly wished to bring to the Chancellor's attention. The Financial Secretary illustrated what happened. I entirely agree with his illustration, and I speak with some knowledge of the facts. There are, as a rule, three or four different parts of an assessment which come up for discussion. Perhaps three would be agreed, and the dispute rest on the fourth. The Financial Secretary pointed out that in that case it was quite clear the commissioners would say that the tax must be paid on the three parts not in dispute. If that be so, what is the objection to the words of the Amendment,
which make it perfectly clear that if there be no dispute the amount of the tax should be paid? There cannot be an amount not in dispute which the commissioners have to depend on their own judgment to decide. The amount either is not in dispute or it is in dispute, and, if the words in the Clause "appears to the special commissioners" mean anything at all, they manifestly mean that the special commissioners are to override the opinion of the taxpayer as to the question in dispute. The Financial Secretary shakes his head, but I put it to him: If the words are not intended to give the special commissioners the power to override what the taxpayer has stated he disputes, then what do they mean If they do not mean that, surely the words "is not in dispute" quite clearly meet the point. It seems to me, therefore, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider this matter he will see that the Committee are more than anxious to meet him in his effort to ensure that all tax not in dispute will be collected, but equally the Committee want to be assured that the dispute shall be confined to the part which the taxpayer has stated, and these words will not give the special commissioners the same power to override what the taxpayer has said.

Mr. CHURCHILL: As you have permitted a general discussion to take place on this Amendment, I would like to put a somewhat wider issue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This Clause applies to Surtax the same principle which it is said was applied to Income Tax in 1926. Is this a time to carry a change of this character? Is this overloaded Budget the vehicle which should be burdened with the additional tidying-up of the procedure against the direct taxpayer? It is not sufficiently realised, and cannot be too frequently emphasised, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, partly by the necessities of his office, partly by his own personal inclinations, and partly by the political forces which actuate him, is making a more direct and invidious attack on the Surtax payer than has ever been made before. He isolates this class as if they were criminals and proceeds against them by every method and from every side simultaneously. This Budget, an enormous document which falls with a clap on the table, he rams through—no Autumn Session is good enough for
the Chancellor, he must have it through within four months from the passing of the Resolutions—and the right hon. Gentleman is advancing against forces which will resist him with determination and without any compunction.
Is he really wise to try to put in all these dodges and means of tightening up, which the Board of Inland Revenue very rightly, in the course of their elaborate administration of the Income Tax Acts, consider from time to time will facilitate their work? Is he really wise to incorporate them in a Budget which, in any case, is a Bill of pains and penalties to a very large class of His Majesty's subjects I Let him take the substance, and leave these petty irritations of the Somerset Rouse torture chamber to some other occasion when he is less pressed for time, when, instead of having to impose pains and penalties, he may have some mitigation to offer. When this principle was applied to the income Tax, it was the year after we had made a reduction of 6d. in the standard rate and it was in the year when we were imposing no new burdens. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that it is easy for him to stand up and say, "I will take £20,000,000 from that class, £12,000,000 from this, and £5,000,000 from the other class of taxpayer." [An HON. MEMBER: "You did that!"] No, on the contrary, I made remissions, and the right hon. Gentleman has accused me of doing it. It is easy for the Chancellor to say that, but make no mistake, it inflicts wounds. They may be necessary wounds; the balance of the Budget must be maintained, the finance of the country must be met, the expenditure must be paid, and the Government of the day are entitled in the main to put the burden upon those classes or the population which they regard as most suited to bear the burden.
I agree to all that, but do not add to that a whole set of minor provisions of an irritating character, which are not necessary to the finance of the year. Above all, do not do it at a time when you are advancing steadily into a no-thoroughfare street. The days are limited, and the wall at the end of the street will be found to be very tough and unyielding. We are not afraid of the right hon. Gentleman or of the machinery which he could bring to bear. In my
view, he cannot possibly get this Budget through in the statutory time unless he imposes the Guillotine closure——

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): The right hon. Gentleman is straying a little from the Question before the Committee.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was anxious to abridge our labours by pointing out the easy course to the right hon. Gentleman. The easy course is not the Closure. It is not sitting up all night. The easy course is to drag out of the Bill the minor and needless provisions which have been stuck in by the Department, and which are so very agreeable to the taste of the right hon. Gentleman that he does not hesitate to fight for them as if they were substantial revenue yielding propositions. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is getting out of this. How much money is there in this Clause? We have to find £50,000,000 odd to balance the Budget, according to him; I say no, but that is the figure, according to him. Accepting his hypothesis, what is the contribution towards that which comes out of this Clause? Is it worth the four or five hours discussion which it will probably take? The right hon. Gentleman need not withdraw in any way from the view which he has expressed, not abate at all in his desire to tighten up the administration in this respect, but surely he will be well advised to postpone it to some period when there is much more time and to a time when he is not irritating this large body of taxpayers; to a time when, if the taxpayers are not getting relief, they are not being worsened in their plight. Then it would be a reasonable and proper course to follow.
My suggestion is that he drop this Clause, and probably 15 or 20 other Clauses in this Bill. Then he will get the £50,000,000 to balance his Budget. The Socialist party ought to be satisfied with that. Why drag in all these little annoyances at a time like this? I am not contesting the principle—I applied it to the Income Tax—but I am contesting the propriety and expediency of doing it at a moment when you are already proceeding with so much necessary vigour and so much unnecessary animus against this same class. The right hon. Gentleman sits there with a wry face, but I will help him out of his
difficulty, while enabling him to carry the provisions for the year which he requires——

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that he proposed an Amendment to this Bill which would deprive me of £30,000,000 of revenue?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is quite true, for when each particular tax is produced, it is the duty of the Opposition to raise the whole question of each tax, and to show the resistance which is incited by its imposition, which resistance is the representative expression of the injury done to a large class of people by the tax. At that moment, we are not concerned with balancing the Budget. The responsibility rests with the Government of the day, and the Opposition are entitled to raise any number of inconsistent propositions which in their aggregate would destroy the Revenue and the balancing of the Budget, in order that these matters may receive the attention of Parliament. That is always done, and by nobody more than the party opposite, who have raised many points affecting the Revenue, and who have made promises which, taken in the aggregate, would amount to hundreds of millions sterling a year.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is again straying from the question under discussion.

Mr. CHURCHILL: This practice of interruption is much to be regretted, but when the right hon. Gentleman showed himself so anxious to intervene, and when he was bubbling and simmering with a desire to intervene, I thought it only right to offer him an opportunity of making a full outpouring of what he had in his mind. It is only to that that I am making an answer. My objection to this Clause is not one of principle at all; it is one of time and of expediency. The right hon. Gentleman runs a great risk in offending the whole body of Income Tax and Surtax payers. He may have to run some part of that risk, and say that he has a responsibility in facing the necessity of an increase in taxation. In part that may be true, but all the more I counsel him to proceed with some tact and discretion. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have not shown an abundance of
it!"] I have had the tact to maintain a continuous opposition without having lost the good humour of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman should, as a matter of political discretion, not burden his Bill with a whole host of points of minor tightenings up of the screw against this particular class at this time. If he loses the good will of the Income Tax and Surtax payers, he will not get the revenue that he requires in time.

Mr. KELLY: The right hon. Gentleman is encouraging them.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not encouraging anybody, but warning the right hon. Gentleman of the consequences which may follow from the course which he is adopting. Whatever we may consider about the expediency of these things, we have not the time to carry all these masses of minor provisions, these frillings which have been attached to this Finance Bill. They have got to go. The right hon. Gentleman must throw out all the lumber from his Budget, or he will not get the Budget in statutory time. I warn him of that. I warned him the other night, and I warn him now.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is again getting away from the Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am warning the right hon. Gentleman on this Clause, and I adduce as my credentials——

Mr. KELLY: On a point of Order. I understand that if an hon. Member is warned three times, he is asked to take his seat.

The CHAIRMAN: I shall be glad if the hon. Member or any other hon. Member will show me the Rule.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman will admit that if there were a rule like that it would be a warning three times in respect of different offences. I ask the Chancellor frankly why he will not consider dropping this Clause for another year, and bringing it up in the Budget next year. He will be there, for he has told us so again and again; or why cannot he bring it up in any of the four years which he is going to use to put the finances of the country in order? If you
go to any great class of people in this country, and tell them that there is something to be done, if you show them the necessity, they will put up with it, but do not annoy them with a lot of harassing trifles flung in at the same time, but put them in when you have some easements to show, and it will make the collection of taxes all the easier.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: I hope that we may be able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary that some alteration regarding this Clause is desirable. The speech of the Financial Secretary makes me think that I can put the case to him in a way which will convince him that an alteration is wanted. I know of no tribunal which is more praiseworthy and reputable than that of the special commissioners; but let us suppose the hon. Member himself were being prosecuted—of course, that is an impossible assumption—on a criminal indictment containing 10 counts, and that he had no defence whatever to some of those counts. Would the hon. Member be satisfied if the Judge decided to try only those counts which he (the Judge) considered were in dispute? Let me give what is, perhaps, a better example. Suppose the hon. Member disputes a number of items in his grocer's bill, saying that he is being charged for goods which he never ordered. Is the Judge before whom that case comes to decide, before hearing the hon. Gentleman, and without his consent, that certain of the goods were in the Judge's opinion ordered and therefore the hon. Member has no right to dispute them?
If there are items which are not in dispute we want the Revenue authorities to be able to recover the money, but we must have regard to the fact that the special commissioners are the tribunal who have to try the case and that they are a very special kind of tribunal. In spite of their fairness and their excellent behaviour, they are a tribunal who are, technically at least, tainted by their connection with the Inland Revenue. It ought not to be for them to decide, without the consent of, or without hearing, the parties, whether one party has a right to dispute a particular item or whether he has not. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot consent to any amendment now, I hope he will consider introducing on the
Report stage some other language which will get rid of the objection which has been raised to the Clause in its present form. A lawyer, reading the Clause alone, and not considering the general custom, would regard it as giving the tribunal the right to decide certain points of a case against a party to that case without that party having been heard. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I quite realise that that is not his intention, but if he will read the Clause he will see that it might happen. At any rate, that is an opinion which has been expressed with great confidence by great lawyers whose business it is to interpret these Acts of Parliament. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be well advised to consider whether he cannot alter the wording of the Clause so as to get rid of the objection without destroying the Clause or losing the advantages which he hopes to secure under it.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: I suggest to the Chancellor that a solution of the difficulty might be found on the lines of an Amendment I have put down providing that there should be an appeal to the general commissioners rather than to the special commissioners. I think the difference between them is not very widely known. The special commissioners are specially identified with the collection of Surtax. The general commissioners, I understand, are a nonprofessional body whose job it is to deal with general cases of appeal. Under the Finance Act of 1926 an appeal was allowed to the general commissioners, and I suggest that is a way of getting round this difficulty. It is as unfair that the appeal from the special commissioners should lie to the special commissioners as it would be if the appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Brown in the High Court should lie to Mr. Justice Brown and not to a higher court. Although from recent personal acquaintance I have the very highest regard for the work being done by the special commissioners, yet when there is a matter in dispute it is impossible for them not to take the view which they have already put forward that the sum of money in dispute ought to be paid. Obviously in such a case there ought to be an appeal to the outside tribunal.
In this case we have one already in existence and there would be no extra expenditure whatever. This tribunal is sitting for Income Tax appeals and what possible objection could there be to these appeals being referred to it? If something could be done on these lines I think this Clause could be agreed to pretty quickly.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: May I make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet us, in the interests of preserving the logical consistency of the Clause? Whatever our political opinions may be, we are all agreed about the necessity of making the language of Bills as clear and free from logical absurdity as possible, whether we are seeking to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer or trying to sharpen the weapons of tax collection, and to my mind there is something illogical in the language which we are here seeking to amend. The whole Clause centres upon a sum which is in dispute. It takes two persons to make a dispute, but we are going to give one party to the dispute the right to say that there is no dispute at all, even though the other party strenuously contends that there is. The Financial Secretary shakes his head. As I followed his observations I understand that he contends that in reality the special commissioners are a tribunal and are not identified with the ordinary tax collector with whom the dispute has arisen in the first place; but I submit that they are a tribunal of a special sort, an administrative tribunal and not in any sense on the same plane as a Law Courts tribunal which deals with all matters affecting the subject.
With the greatest fairness of mind in the world, a tribunal which is identified with the work of tax collecting cannot prevent a certain infiltration of the tax-collecting spirit. However fair and balanced the special commissioners may be in their decisions, there still remains the absurdity that when the taxpayer says, "I dispute that item," they have the power to say that there is no dispute about it. Surely if the taxpayer says that he has been wrongly assessed there is at least a dispute, and the words we are seeking to put in are, I respectfully submit, much more logical and free from absurdity than those at present in the
Clause. The special commissioners are not regarded by the ordinary taxpayers as occupying that impartial judicial position which the Financial Secretary ascribed to them. The ordinary man associates them with the Income Tax collecting machinery. In his eyes they are a part of that machinery, and I am certain it will arouse a sense of grievance amongst taxpayers if we give a body which is regarded as part of the tax-collecting machinery the power to say there is no dispute about an item which the taxpayer is strenuously disputing.
In these days, when the burden upon the direct taxpayer is becoming increasingly onerous, we must be careful to preserve that sense of fairness to which allusion has been made. We are creating in our tax-collecting machinery a body of highly efficient persons who give loyal and industrious service to the State, and in this sporting nation of ours it is impossible for any body of persons to enter in a service without becoming imbued with a sporting effort to try to do their job as well as possible. I have not the least doubt that when the tax gatherers of this country relax, if ever they do, in their clubs and canteens and places like that, that they tell each other stories of their activities. One man will say how he has just succeeded in screwing £5 out of a grocer, and another will cap that with some greater triumph. You have there a spirit which is very laudable from the revenue side, but which is a danger to the taxpayer unless we are careful to make sure that no undue weapon is placed in the tax gatherer's hands. If the Chancellor will not accept the words we propose, I appeal to him to secure, before the Report stage, some form of words which will avoid the main grievance, that a taxpayer who is strenuously contending against a certain imposition of taxation is to be told that there is no dispute at all about it, and to be told that by a body which he regards as part of the tax-collecting machinery.
Recently we have heard from the highest judicial tribunal in the land severe criticism of the extent to which the ordinary taxpayer is sometimes taken up the whole ladder of litigation by the tax-collecting authorities, put to very heavy costs, and put also to immense anxiety as to his financial posi-
tion and to great inconvenience and trouble. There is a feeling abroad that the Inland Revenue Department is becoming too efficient and too tyrannical in that way, that they do use their power, no doubt very properly and very patriotically, in the interests of the country, but that they are apt to neglect and ignore the anxiety and the pain which their action inflicts upon the ordinary citizens, to whom alone we have to look for the revenue which pays the salaries of these gentlemen.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been pleading Clause 25 of the Act of 1926 in support of this Clause, but I suggest that he should put that Clause aside. No particular principle is involved in the Clause before us, and if he makes a concession he will be conceding no principle. It is merely a question of machinery. If the words proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) were included, they would not alter the

whole effect of the Clause, and there would be no diminution of the power of the Inland Revenue to collect that which is due. Therefore, I think the Chancellor might show a little graciousness here, and meet us by adopting some other form of words, forgetting the words of Clause 25 of the Act of 1926. That would wipe away what is regarded as a grievance, upon which the taxpayer's fear is founded. I suggest that if you put in the words "is not" instead of the words "appears to the special commissioners not to be," you would not weaken the Clause. In that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get the powers which he seeks, and the concession would satisfy those who sit on the Opposition side of the Committee.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN rose in, his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 128.

Division No. 376.]
AYES.
[5.48 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Compton, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cove, William G.
Harbord, A.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cowan, D. M.
Hardie, George D.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Daggar, George
Harris, Percy A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Dallas, George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Alpass, J. H.
Dalton, Hugh
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Arnott, John
Day, Harry
Haycock, A. W.


Aske, Sir Robert
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hayday, Arthur


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dickson, T.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Ayles, Walter
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dukes, C.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Ede, James Chuter
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Barnes, Alfred John
Edmunds, J. E.
Herriotts, J.


Barr, James
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Egan, W. H.
Hoffman, P. C.


Bellamy, Albert
Elmley, Viscount
Hollins, A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
England, Colonel A.
Hopkin, Daniel


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Foot, Isaac
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Benson, G.
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Horrabin, J. F.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Isaacs, George


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bowen, J. W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Johnston, Thomas


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Bromfield, William
Gill, T. H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)


Brothers, M.
Glassey, A. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Gossling, A. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gould, F.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Burgess, F. G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kelly, W. T.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Granville, E.
Kennedy, Thomas


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Gray, Milner
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Cameron, A. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kinley, J.


Cape, Thomas
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Kirkwood, D.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Knight, Holford


Charleton, H. C.
Groves, Thomas E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Chater, Daniel
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lang, Gordon


Clarke, J. S.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lathan, G.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Oldfield, J. R.
Snell, Harry


Lawrence, Susan
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lawson, John James
Palin, John Henry.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Paling, Wilfrid
Sorensen, R.


Leach, W.
Palmer, E. T.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stephen, Campbell


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Perry, S. F.
Strauss, G. R.


Lees, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sullivan, J.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Sutton, J. E.


Logan, David Gilbert
Potts, John S.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Longbottom, A. W.
Price, M. P.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Longden, F.
Pybus, Percy John
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lowth, Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Tillett, Ben


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Tinker, John Joseph


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Raynes, W. R.
Tout, W. J.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Richards, R.
Townend, A. E.


McElwee, A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


McEntee, V. L.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Vaughan, D. J.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Viant, S. P.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Ritson, J.
Walkden, A. G.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Walker, J.


McShane, John James
Romeril, H. G.
Wallace, H. W.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rowson, Guy
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Mansfield, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watkins, F. C.


Marley, J.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Marshall, Fred
Sanders, W. S.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Mathers, George
Sandham, E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Messer, Fred
Sawyer, G. F.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Middleton, G.
Scurr, John
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Millar, J. D.
Sexton, James
West, F. R.


Milner, Major J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Westwood, Joseph


Montague, Frederick
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
White, H. G.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sherwood, G. H.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Morley, Ralph
Shield, George William
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Shillaker, J. F.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Simmons, C. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mort, D. L.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Moses, J. J. H.
Sinkinson, George
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sitch, Charles H.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Muff, G.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)



Murnin, Hugh
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nathan, Major H. L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. William


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Whiteley.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Atkinson, C.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir J. O.


Balniel, Lord
Dawson, Sir Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Berry, Sir George
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Boothby, R. J. G.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Everard, W. Lindsay
Long, Major Eric


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fielden, E. B.
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Meller, R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Buchan, John
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mond, Hon. Henry


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Carver, Major W. H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Christle, J. A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Sir George


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hartington, Marquess of
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Haslam, Henry C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Colfox, Major William Philip
Heneaqe, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Colville, Major D. J.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Ramsbotham, H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Remer, John R.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Iveagh, Countess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)




Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Smithers, Waldron
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ross, Major Ronald D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wells, Sydney R.


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Salmon, Major I.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Withers, Sir John James


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Tinne, J. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Savery, S. S.
Train, J.



Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wardlaw-Mllne, J. S.
Wallace.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 145.

Division No. 377.]
AYES.
[5.57 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Logan, David Gilbert


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gill, T. H.
Longbottom, A. W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Glassey, A. E.
Longden, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gossling, A. G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Alpass, J. H.
Gould, F.
Lowth, Thomas


Arnott, John
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Ayles, Walter
Granville, E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McElwee, A.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, V. L.


Barnes, Alfred John
Groves, Thomas E.
MacLaren, Andrew


Barr, James
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McShane, John James


Bellamy, Albert
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Harbord, A.
Mansfield, W.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Hardle, George D.
Marley, J.


Benson, G.
Harris, Percy A.
Marshall, F.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mathers, George


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Messer, Fred


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Haycock, A. W.
Middleton, G.


Bowen, J. W.
Hayday, Arthur
Millar, J. D.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Milner, Major J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Montague, Frederick


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Brooke, W.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morley, Ralph


Brothers, M.
Herriotts, J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Mort, D. L.


Burgess, F. G.
Hollins, A.
Moses, J. J. H.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hopkin, Daniel
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Cameron, A. G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Muff, G.


Cape, Thomas
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Isaacs, George
Murnin, Hugh


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Chater, Daniel
Johnston, Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Church, Major A. G.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Clarke, J. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oldfield, J. R.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palin, John Henry


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Paling, Wilfrid


Cove, William G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Palmer, E. T.


Daggar, George
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Dallas, George
Kelly, W. T.
Perry, S. F.


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Day, Harry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kinley, J.
Potts, John S.


Dickson, T.
Kirkwood, D.
Price, M. P.


Dukes, C.
Knight, Holford
Pybus, Percy John


Ede, James Chuter
Lang, Gordon
Quibell, D. J. K.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rathbone, Eleanor


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lathan, G.
Raynes, W. R.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Richards, R.


Egan, W. H.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Elmley, Viscount
Lawrence, Susan
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Foot, Isaac
Lawson, John James
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Ritson, J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Leach, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Romeril, H. G.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lees, J.
Rowson, Guy


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wallace, H. W.


Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Sanders, W. S.
Snell, Harry
Watkins, F. C.


Sandham, E.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Sawyer, G. F.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Scurr, John
Sorensen, R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Sexton, James
Stamford, Thomas W.
Welsh, James (Paisley)



Stephen, Campbell
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Strauss, G. R.
Westwood, Joseph


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Sullivan, J.
White, H. G.


Sherwood, G. H.
Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Shield, George William
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Shillaker, J. F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Simmons, C. J.
Tillett, Ben
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sinkinson, George
Tout, W. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sitch, Charles H.
Townend, A. E.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Vaughan, D. J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Viant, S. P.



Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Walkden, A. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Walker, J.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. William Whiteley


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ford, Sir P. J.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Aske, Sir Robert
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Atkinson, C.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Balniel, Lord
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Remer, John R.


Berry, Sir George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gray, Milner
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Salmon, Major I.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Buchan, John
Haslam, Henry C.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Savery, S. S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Smithers, Waldron


Chapman, Sir S.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Christie, J. A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Sir F.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Tinne, J. A.


Colville, Major D. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cowan, D. M.
Locker-Lampson, Com, O. (Handsw'th)
Train, J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Long, Major Eric
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lymington, Viscount
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Dalkeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wardlaw-Milne. J. S.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Meller, R. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Withers, Sir John James


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Womersley, W. J.


England, Colonel A.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Everard, W. Lindsay
O'Neill, Sir H.



Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fermoy, Lord
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Fielden, E. B.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Sir George Penny.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Pownall, Sir Assheton

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson)
—in page 16, line 40, after the word "to," to insert the words "the person assessed and"—and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Mem-
ber for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne)—in page 17, line 6, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that, before such payment is demanded, the taxpayer shall have the right if he questions the decision of the commissioners as to their determination of the amount not in dispute, to put his case before them at a personal hearing"—
were to have been moved formally. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green, but, unfortunately, owing to the way in which I put the Question on the Amendment that we have just decided, his Amendment is ruled out.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I say, with great respect, that this is rather an awkward situation 2 Such a situation often arises, with perfect good will and good faith on either side, per incuriam. Something takes place, or a Clause is put in a particular way, and a Division is taken. Let me, however, recall to you, Sir, and to the Committee, exactly how our business so far has been running this afternoon——

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman wants to put a point of Order to me, but the responsibility rests upon me.

Mr, CHURCHILL: It is to you, Sir, that I am addressing myself exclusively, if I may say so, not only in the purely Parliamentary sense, as is my duty, but also personally, in regard to this matter. It was understood that, if a general debate on the whole Clause took place on the first Amendment, the other two Amendments would be moved with short speeches and disposed of very rapidly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Formally!"] There is a difference of opinion as to whether it was to be formally or with short speeches. There is not much difference between the one and the other. "Formally" would not exclude short speeches.

The CHAIRMAN: There can be no point of Order in regard to that matter.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am reciting what has happened, because there must not be any misunderstandings; we do not want to get any bad blood into our discussions. These two Amendments were to have been moved, as the Government contend, formally, and, as we say, with short speeches——

The CHAIRMAN: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was raising a point of Order with me, and not with the Government, with regard to the way in which I put the Question.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The way in which you put the Question founds itself upon the events which preceded the putting of the Question, namely, that these two Amendments were to be moved formally, as the Government contend, or, as we say, with short speeches—there is no difference between the two—[Interruption.] If we say we will do it, we will do it; and let that be remembered, by the way. There was no clear——

The CHAIRMAN: There must have been some mistake at the very beginning. The Question originally was put in the way that I put it, and evidently nobody on the Opposition side of the Committee drew the attention of the Chairman to it at the time.

Mr. CHURCHILL: However it may be, the fact remains that we are not in a position to move these two Amendments——

The CHAIRMAN: Only one of them.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We can only move two out of the three. We have lost one of them. We can neither move it formally and divide upon it for the purpose of expressing our opinion upon it, nor can we move it by short speeches. I agree that it is, therefore, irrevocable. "The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on." We cannot recall it, even with all your good will or ours. Therefore, we must regard that Amendment as having gone. But I submit to you, Sir, that the fact that this has happened completely disposes of the slightest understanding on the rest of the Clause. I am putting it to the sense of fair play of the Committee——

The CHAIRMAN: That is the view of the right hon. Gentleman, but it does not arise on the point of Order as to the way in which I put the Question.

Mr. CHURCHILL: With very great respect, the point of Order that I am putting is not a point of Order purely affecting a technical matter. It governs the important aspect of the general relations between the parties in the House and the Chair during the progress of
these protracted discussions, and I suggest that, as we have lost altogether the opportunity of moving and voting upon this Amendment, it is quite clear that, on the remaining Amendments which are saved, we shall revive our right to have the ordinary free and untramelled discussion, and to have a full discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: On the point of Order. I would like to get clearly from you, Mr. Young, exactly what the position is.

The CHAIRMAN: I will state it. All that has happened is that the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green has not been saved, and, therefore, cannot now be put from the Chair. That is all that has happened. The blame for that should not be cast upon the Government Front Bench because a mistake was made by the Chairman for the time being, at the time when the agreement was made.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not understand that there was an agreement between the parties and the Deputy-Chairman, but my right hon. Friend will take up that point and enlarge upon it further. I understand that a suggestion was made by the Deputy-Chairman, and my right hon. Friend acquiesced in it, but it must not be considered on the same basis as a Parliamentary bargain reached with the Government. It was an understanding for the good conduct of the debate, reached between my right hon. Friend and the Chair. Since, as you have said, though I would never venture to say it, the Chair made a mistake, I suggest to you that it is for the Chair to release us from the slightest obligation in the matter.

The CHAIRMAN: This is really not a point of Order. The discussion is taking place over something the Committee has done, perhaps by an error on the part of the Chair, in not having saved an Amendment, and the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) unfortunately cannot be formally moved. The only thing left for the Committee is to proceed with the Amendment in the name of the hon.
Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne), which I also understood was to be formally moved.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Would it be possible to save it, in a sense, by putting in a manuscript Amendment, a proviso, containing the words which have been left out?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I was going to make some such suggestion myself. If you could see your way, Mr. Young, to accept a manuscript Amendment, which again would be moved formally, and we divide without discussion, that would be a reasonable way out, which would observe what was an understanding between the Chair and both sides of the Committee, and would preserve the hon. Member's right to have a formal vote taken, and it would not take up time.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I want to get it clear. I have no objection to what has been proposed regarding my hon. Friend's Amendment, but you, Sir, have twice stated that it was understood that my Amendment would be put without discussion.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must raise that point when he comes to his Amendment. If the right hon. Member for Wood Green can find a suitable place, I shall be pleased to put his Amendment. It is one of those things that will happen.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is really most important that we should not begin what may be a very protracted sitting with any misunderstanding. I understand it is settled that this Amendment which was cut out is now to be restored. That being so, our grievance disappears. We will take these three issues in the briefest possible Parliamentary time, but I must make it clear that we must have a reasonable Parliamentary opportunity of discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. REMER: Many of us on this side, not only on this but on other occasions, do not hear you, Mr. Young, when you put the Question from the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order, but this is the first time I have heard it said that Members do not hear me.

Mr. REMER: My point of Order is that you were not heard in the noise and the curious sounds coming from the opposite side.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will use his influence with both sides of the Committee.

Mr. LEIF JONES: On the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I certainly understood that we were taking a discussion of the Clause on the first Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman himself made a speech which not only covered the Clause but almost covered the Budget. He went so far beyond the Clause as to be interrupted by the Chair. Those who want to get on with the Bill are entitled to ask that we shall not have that discussion repeated on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The CHAIRMAN: I am in the hands of the Committee in the matter. I can give no ruling in regard to that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not want there to be an accusation of bad faith. I contend that a reasonable and brief discussion on the Question "That the Clause stand part" is not barred out by any arrangement. If the Financial Secretary will say that is so, he will be no sufferer by it.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I certainly understood we were having a discussion at the time on the Amendment, but if the right hon. Gentleman says a brief discussion is not ruled out, and that it will facilitate business, I will accept that.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: These things are being discussed without my having an opportunity of saying what has been settled as far as I am concerned.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry. I did not call on the hon. Member before, because this is all out of order at this stage. I am waiting on the Amendment.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: The point I want to put is this. Your predecessor made it clear that he wanted to have the Amendments that were germane to the Amendment we were then discussing disposed of as far as possible together, and that was afterwards agreed to between
the two parties when I was not present. My Amendment cannot be discussed until the previous Amendment is disposed of, and I do not think it would be fair that I should be bound as to the range of discussion that can arise on this Amendment.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Might I perhaps say for your information, Mr. Young, that while your predecessor was in the Chair and the right hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) was speaking, he was ruled out of order, the Chairman stating that it would be in order when we came to discuss the Question, "That the Clause stand part," so there can be no doubt about it.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know why all these appeals are made to me. I have no part in the matter.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in page 17, line 6, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that the person assessed shall be entitled to be heard by the commissioners before their decision is given as to the amount upon which tax is to be paid.
I have already made my speech on another occasion. It is simply to enable a person to be heard before the commissioners before they finally determine the amount in dispute.

Sir D. HERBERT: On a point of Order. Is it your intention, Mr. Young, that no other Amendments on this Clause shall be selected? Otherwise, this is not the place for my right hon. Friend's Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: This is another case of the hon. Gentleman not knowing the arrangement that has been come to. It is very unfortunate. The Deputy-Chairman told me, when I took the Chair, that a general discussion on all the Amendments was taking place, and only the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) would be put formally. This is perfectly in order now.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Do I understand that this new Amendment will rule out my Amendment, which seems to be the same thing?

The CHAIRMAN: I promised the hon. Member that I would call his Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 265.

Division No. 378.]
AYES.
[6.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
O'Neill, Sir H.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atkinson, C.
Fermoy, Lord
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fielden, E. B.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beaumont, M. W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Berry, Sir George
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Remer, John R.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bracken, B.
Hammersley, S. S.
Salmon, Major I.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Buchan, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Savery, S. S.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Chapman, Sir S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Christie, J. A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Sir F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tinne, J. A.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Train, J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cowan, D. M.
Long, Major Eric
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lymington, Viscount
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dalkeith, Earl of
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dawson, Sir Philip
Millar, J. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Withers, Sir John James


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Womersley, W. J.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Edmondson, Major A. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


England, Colonel A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Sir Frederick Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bowen, J. W.
Daggar, George


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Broad, Francis Alfred
Dallas, George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Brockway, A. Fenner
Dalton, Hugh


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Bromfield, William
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hllisbro')
Brooke, W.
Day, Harry


Alpass, J. H.
Brothers, M.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Dickson, T.


Arnott, John
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dukes, C.


Aske, Sir Robert
Buchanan, G.
Ede, James Chuter


Attlee, Clement Richard
Burgess, F. G.
Edmunds, J. E.


Ayles, Walter
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Barr, James
Cameron, A. G.
Egan, W. H.


Batey, Joseph
Cape, Thomas
Elmley, Viscount


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Foot, Isaac


Bellamy, Albert
Charleton, H. C.
Forgan, Dr. Robert


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Chater, Daniel
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Church, Major A. G.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Benson, G.
Clarke, J. S.
Gibbins, Joseph


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gill, T. H.


Birkett, W. Norman
Compton, Joseph
Glassey, A. E.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Cove, William G.
Gossling, A. G.


Gould, F.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sherwood, G. H.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McElwee, A.
Shield, George William


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McEntee, V. L.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Granville, E.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Shillaker, J. F.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McShane, John James
Simmons, C. J.


Groves, Thomas E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sinkinson, George


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mansfield, W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marley, J.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marshall, Fred
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mathers, George
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Harbord, A.
Messer, Fred
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Hardle, George D.
Middleton, G.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Harris, Percy A.
Milner, Major J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Montague, Frederick
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Snell, Harry


Haycock, A. W.
Morley, Ralph
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hayday, Arthur
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sorensen, R.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mort, D. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Moses, J. J. H.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Herriotts, J.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Strauss, G. R.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sullivan, J.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Muff, G.
Sutton, J. E.


Hoffman, P. C.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hollins, A.
Murnin, Hugh
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hopkin, Daniel
Nathan, Major H. L.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Horrabin, J. F.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Tillett, Ben


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Oldfield, J. R.
Tinker, John Joseph


Isaacs, George
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Tout, W. J.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palin, John Henry
Townend, A. E.


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Paling, Wilfrid
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Palmer, E. T.
Vaughan, D. J.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Viant, S. P.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Perry, S. F.
Walkden, A. G.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Walker, J.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wallace, H. W.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Potts, John S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Price, M. P.
Watkins, F. C.


Kelly, W. T.
Pybus, Percy John
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kennedy, Thomas
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wellock, Wilfred


Kinley, J.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Kirkwood, D.
Raynes, W. R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lang, Gordon
Richards, R.
West, F. R.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Westwood, Joseph


Lathan, G.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
White, H. G.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Lawrence, Susan
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Romeril, H. G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Leach, W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Rowson, Guy
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lees, J.
Samuel Rt. Ron. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Logan, David Gilbert
Sandham, E.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Longbottom, A. W.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Longden, F.
Scrymgeour, E.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Scurr, John



Lowth, Thomas
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I beg to move, in page 17, line 6, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that, before such payment is demanded, the taxpayer shall have the right, if he questions the decision of the commissioners as to their determination of the amount not in dispute, to put his case before them at a personal hearing.
I wish to say why I am so anxious to preserve this Amendment. The previous Amendments which we discussed, particularly the Amendment in the name of
my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), referred to the desirability of the special commissioners not having the right of deciding the amount in dispute except in agreement with the taxpayer. The object of those Amendments was to make the taxpayer and the special commissioners in agreement as to the amount in dispute and not to give the special commissioners any over-riding right in the matter. It was clear, therefore, that this Amendment
could not suitably be discussed at the same time, because it deals only with the position which will arise if and when the commissioners give a decision. If the Committee had not decided to support the Clause in the Bill it would not have been necessary to move this Amendment. The terms of this Amendment come into force now that it has been decided that it shall lie within the power of the commissioners to decide what appears to them to be the amount not in dispute. My Amendment makes it clear that if that takes place and the commissioners decide upon an amount to which the taxpayer does not agree, at least the taxpayer shall have the right of a personal hearing by the commissioners before a final decision is arrived at.
From what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said earlier in the debate to-day, I think that this Amendment must appeal to him. He first of all said that in these cases there really was no dispute. I am paraphrasing his actual words. In effect he said that there is no dispute. The assessment is made, perhaps, in two or three parts. The bulk of it may not be in dispute and only one part may remain in dispute, and, therefore, he said that there is no question of a dispute really arising. If that be the case, and his reading of the Clause is correct and the taxpayer does not, unfortunately, always agree and thinks that he has a grievance, surely there is no objection to his being allowed to put his case before the special commissioners at a personal hearing. If there is no further meaning of the words in the Clause adopted by the Committee than that put before the Committee by the Financial Secretary, there can be no possible objection to the acceptance of this addition to the Clause. If the Government object—I hope that they are not going to do so—it will be because they read into the Clause something more than they have told the Committee.

I should have liked to develop the matter at considerable length, because I feel very strongly that it is most essential that we in this country should not take up an attitude of distrusting the taxpayer. No greater tribute has been paid to the honesty of the taxpayers of this country than has been paid by those who have to collect the Revenue. It would be a great pity to do anything which appears to suspect people or to give the impression that the House of Commons thinks that the taxpayer desires to be dishonest. That is not the case. There is no country in the world where tax is collected in the way it is in this country, and anything which gives suspicion that we think there is a likelihood of dishonesty will do a great deal of harm. However, I am not going to develop that argument. If this Clause means nothing more than the Government say it means there can be no possible objection to the addition of these words.

Mr. REMER: Are we not going to have a reply from the Government?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I thought the answer had been given during the debate on the previous Amendment. The Government cannot accept this proposal. They consider the form of words recommended by the Royal Commission and adopted in the previous Act quite sufficient, and they do not see any reason to accept the Amendment.

Mr. REMER: I must strongly protest against the very inadequate reply of the Financial Secretary to the very admirable speech of the hon. Member for Kidder-minister (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne). In the case of a dispute, it is quite obvious that the taxpayer will have to pay without being heard. Once more the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given no answer to what I regard as a very important proposal.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 267.

Division No. 379.]
AYES.
[6.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bird, Ernest Roy


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Balniel, Lord
Boothby, R. J. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Beaumont, M. W.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Aske, Sir Robert
Berry, Sir George
Bracken, B.


Atkinson, C.
Betteston, Sir Henry B.
Brass, Captain Sir William


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Briscoe, Richard George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Remer, John R.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hall, Lieut-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Christie, J. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Colfox, Major William Philip
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Colville, Major D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smithers, Waldron


Cowan, D. M.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Crookshank, cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thomson, Sir F.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Long, Major Eric
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dawson, Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Train, J.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Meller, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Eden, Captain Anthony
Millar, J. D.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Warrender, Sir Victor


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Water house, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Wayland, Sir William A.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wells, Sydney R.


Fermoy, Lord
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Fielden, E. B.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ford, Sir P. J.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Withers, Sir John James


Ganzoni, Sir John
Penny, Sir George
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Womersley, W. J.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ramsbotham, H.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Charleton, H. C.
Granville, E.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Chater, Daniel
Gray, Milner


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Church, Major A. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Alpass, J. H.
Clarke, J. S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Ammon, Charles George
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Groves, Thomas E.


Arnott, John
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grundy, Thomas W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Compton, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Ayles, Walter
Cove, William G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Daggar, George
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Barr, James
Dallas, George
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Bellamy, Albert
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Harbord, A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Day, Harry
Hardle, George D.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Harris, Percy A.


Benson, G.
Dickson, T.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Dukes, C.
Haycock, A. W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Ede, James Chuter
Hayday, Arthur


Birkett, W. Norman
Edmunds, J. E.
Hayes, John Henry


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bowen, J. W.
Egan, W. H.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Elmley, Viscount
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Foot, Isaac
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Bromfield, William
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Herriotts, J.


Brooke, W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Brothers, M.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Hoffman, P. C.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Hollins, A.


Buchanan, G.
Gibbins, Joseph
Hopkin, Daniel


Burgess, F. G.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Horrabin, J. F.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gill, T. H.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Glassey, A. E.
Hutchison, Maj-Gen, Sir R.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Gossling, A. G.
Isaacs, George


Cameron, A. G.
Gould, F.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Cape, Thomas
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Johnston, Thomas




Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Moses, J. J. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muff, G.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Murnin, Hugh
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Snell, Harry


Kedward R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Kelly, W. T.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Kennedy, Thomas
Oldfield, J. R.
Sorensen, B.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Kinley, J.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Stephen, Campbell


Kirkwood, D.
Palin, John Henry
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Lang, Gordon
Paling, Wilfrid
Strauss, G. R.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Palmer, E. T.
Sullivan, J.


Lathan, G.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sutton, J. E.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Perry, S. F.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lawrence, Susan
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Potts, John S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Leach, W.
Price, M. P.
Tillett, Ben


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Pybus, Percy John
Tinker, John Joseph


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Tout, W. J.


Lees, J.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Townend, A. E.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Logan, David Gilbert
Raynes, W. R.
Vaughan, D. J.


Longbottom, A. W.
Richards, R.
Viant, S. P.


Longden, F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Walkden, A. G.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Walker, J.


Lowth, Thomas
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wallace, H. W.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Ritson, J.
Wallhead, Richard C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watkins, F. C.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Romeril, H. G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


McElwee, A.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


McEntee, V. L.
Rowson, Guy
Wellock, Wilfred


MacLaren, Andrew
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sanders, W. S.
West, F. R.


McShane, John James
Sandham, E.
Westwood, Joseph


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sawyer, G. F.
White, H. G.


Mansfield, W.
Scrymgeour, E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Lady wood)


Marley, J.
Scurr, John
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Marshall, F.
Sexton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Mathers, George
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Matters, L. W.
Sherwood, G. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Messer, Fred
Shield, George William
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Middleton, G.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Milner, Major J.
Shillaker, J. F.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Montague, Frederick
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Simmons, C. J.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Morley, Ralph
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sinkinson, George



Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A.




Barnes.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir K. WOOD: I propose to make some observations on this Clause, but, in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I shall compress them as far as possible. The first observation that must be made on what is contained in the Clause is that no one has put forward a sufficiency of facts to substantiate the necessity for this Clause at all. I have heard nothing in the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to show the need for this Clause being introduced in this Bill. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer
is endeavouring to obtain some further powers for the special commissioners, the first thing the Committee is entitled to is a full statement of the facts which have led him to introduce this Clause. Up to the present we have had no statement which justifies him in asking for this provision. If you assume, as he has asked us to do, that there is some necessity for proposals of this kind, the actual terms of the Clause itself go much further than the necessities as they have been stated by the representatives of the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, in cases where there was an agreement and a settlement between the taxpayer and the commissioners, it was obviously right that the payment of the amount in question
should not be held up because there was a dispute relating to some matters outside the sum which had been settled between the commissioners and the taxpayers.
That is a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. Is it not a fact that, if the commissioners do come to an agreement and a settlement with the taxpayer in respect to any item, then there is no need for the provisions of a Clause of this character, because immediately the agreement and settlement are made, the money becomes a debt which can be recovered immediately? I ask my two right hon. Friends representing Cornish Divisions who are in the legal profession if they do not accept that proposition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that that is a view to which he cannot assent and I think we are entitled on this to the views of the Attorney-General. Of course, I accept the statement of the Chancellor that he has been advised that in such a case he wants still further legal protection so that payment can be enforced of any sum which has been agreed and settled between the special commissioners and the taxpayer. If that is so, the terms of this Clause go much beyond the necessity of that particular case. If all the Chancellor wants is some power to enable the special commissioners to recover immediately sums agreed and settled between the taxpayer and the special commissioners, that is not what is contained in this Clause. It is a, very different Clause and gives very much wider powers than anything the Chancellor has stated he will require. I object particularly to that part which gives to the commissioners the right to say that the amount which is to be recovered is the amount they have determined. The wording of the Clause puts the taxpayer in this unfortunate position, that it is not a question of the amount agreed upon between him and the special commissioners but these provisions put out of court any possible contention or dispute that the individual taxpayer can have with the special commissioners, because it says that the amount in question, which must be immediately paid and on which he can have no appeal at all, is such amount as maybe appear to them to be due. That goes beyond the reason and necessity of this Clause.
While I am prepared to concede that there may be a necessity for a Clause of a different character, this Clause goes much beyond it. It would be a scandal if, because a taxpayer has a dispute with the special commissioners on a particular item, he should avoid paying his just dues. That would be a monstrous thing, but, on the other hand, as so often appears in these Finance Bills, on the merits of a good case, you find creeping into these Clauses extraordinary powers far beyond what was needed. If one wants to see an example of a good case being used to obtain extraordinary powers, there is a very good example in this Clause. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some undertaking that between now and other stages of the Bill he will consider whether, in fact, this Clause does not go far beyond what was necessary and put in some words, which will give him the powers which he states are necessary from the point of view of proper collection of Income Tax and Sur-tax and which at the same time will not impose unfairness and hardship on the individual taxpayer and also will not give dangerous powers to the special commissioners.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: The terms of this Clause and its inclusion in the Finance Bill prove something I have always held since I came into the House, that the occupants on the Front Bench on both sides of the House are divided into two classes, those who have a Civil Service mind and those who have not. It is no monopoly of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) confiding to his successor in office that it was a good Clause, that a thumbscrew was a very useful thing, but would it be wise to apply it at the moment? It was like torturer No. 1 suggesting to torturer No. 2 the wisdom of using the thumbscrew. I am in the position of the thumb, and the thumb does not always agree with the two torturers as to the most desirable time to use the instrument. Whatever side of the House you take, you get the Civil Service mind and Civil Service approach. We are in this House largely to protect the rights of the individual taxpayer and citizen. In the provisions of this Clause we seem to be going far beyond the proper provisions for looking after the interests
for which we are responsible. I cannot help being reminded of those words in Alice in Wonderland:
I'll be judge, I'll be jury, said cunning old Fury.
I'll try the whole case, and condemn you to death.
It would ill become me to speak of the present occupant of the torturer's chair as a cunning old Fury, but the idea of one person being judge and jury and condemning the prisoner to death is implicit in this Clause. If a matter is not in dispute, it does not lie with anyone to decide whether it is in dispute or not. There is nobody who will submit for a moment that, if you got a claim for tax amounting to £15,000 or £20,000—I wish I could have such a claim made against me—and then there was a dispute over a couple of hundred pounds, you could hold up payment over an item of that sort. No one would support that, and we might still consider the desirability of including in our legislation what is done in the United States of America. There you pay Income Tax on a certain day and, if subsequently it is proved you have overpaid, you are allowed 5 per cent. on the money, while, if you do not pay, you are charged 5 per cent. on the money. That, however, could not be brought in to-day.
I only say that to disabuse the minds of hon. Members opposite of the idea that anyone on this side of the Committee wants to support unjust claims by a taxpayer against the Treasury. That is not our idea at all, but to protect the taxpayer from what may possibly develop into a hardship. To make parties judge and jury in their own case is contrary to the tenets of fair play. We are suspicious that there are some cases which the Treasury have brought forward and on which they have found a willing ear in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and where they feel they could put on the screw and facilitate what has hitherto not been too easy to them, and risk trampling on the legitimate rights of the taxpayer. The various Amendments which have been turned down without any adequate reason are so innocuous in themselves, and so completely protect the rights of the Treasury while at the same time preventing the possibility of wrong to the taxpayer, that I cannot understand why the Chancellor
of the Exchequer has not at least consented to say, "I see that your idea is fair; it is possible that the Clause as it stands may inflict hardship, and therefore I undertake to introduce something which will place it beyond peradventure that what I want will be obtained, and what you want to be guarded against will be guarded against." While one can understand that on the vital provisions of this Measure the Chancellor will not give way by one jot or tittle, yet, in this matter which is not vital to the balance of the Bill, and which may, arguably, involve a possible unfairness, we are a little disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has not been more gracious and that he has persisted in his unyielding attitude on this as well as on other Clauses of the Bill.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: During the earlier part of this discussion I felt that possibly there was not so much objection to this Clause as some of my hon. Friends made out, because the special commissioners, as far as I know, are a body of gentlemen who do their work very thoroughly and who do not, I think, attempt to take undue advantage of the taxpayer. They are not, I understand, a branch of the Inland Revenue, but an independent body and they bring independent minds to bear upon these matters. But my suspicions have been aroused by the fact that the Government have flatly refused to accept even a very minor Amendment to the Clause providing that the taxpayer, if he has a grievance, can go and see the commissioners. It is outrageous to say that the taxpayer, if he has a grievance, cannot go and see the commissioners and I am certain that the commissioners themselves would have no objection to such a provision. I put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Assuming that the taxpayer, in filling up the form of objection, makes some error or expresses himself ambiguously. He may, for instance, have known in his own mind exactly what he wanted to say, but he may have said something different. That happens over and over again. The commissioners look at the man's own words; they certify as to what is disputed and what is not, and that is the end of it, and the man receives notification that he must pay. Surely
it is reasonable that, if he has made a mistake, he should be allowed to explain it. Surely it is wrong that there should be a flat refusal to allow him to give any explanation to the commissioners. That makes me very suspicious. The refusal to accept that reasonable little Amendment which would not have involved a delay of a fortnight in getting the money, seems to show that the Government have something sinister at the backs of their minds in connection with this matter.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I wish to know whether this Clause will operate both ways. The discussion up to now has been confined to the question of whether the taxpayers will be compelled to pay. I wish to know whether the Treasury will also be compelled to receive. The reason why I put that question is that, in the past, cases have arisen in which the financial balance of the year has been perceptibly affected by the fact that certain amounts have still been in dispute. More than one case has come within my personal knowledge in which, although a large majority of claims had already been settled and agreed upon, there was still a small amount in dispute, and in those cases the Revenue authorities refused to receive so much of the amount as was agreed upon and to leave the rest of the amount until afterwards. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has definitely told the Committee that quite unintentionally the effect of that particular operation was to increase substantially the deficit of his predecessor, and that the revenue in his own year of office was quite substantially diminished in the same way. We accept, of course, the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that these have been merely accidental results, but it is obviously undesirable that the Treasury or the Revenue authorities should have it in their power to defer revenue from one year to another, and that is why I ask whether this Clause will operate equally with regard to receiving and with regard to paying.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I wish to make a few brief observations in reply to some of the points which have been raised in this discussion. Three or four of the speeches delivered recently do not, I think, raise any material points which have not already been before the Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K.
Wood) threw some doubt upon a statement which I made that there were no legal powers at the present time to compel payment of any duty which was not in dispute in these cases. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that what I said is perfectly correct. If there had been such powers, a Clause of this kind would not have been necessary and would not have been introduced. As a matter of fact the only power which, under the existing law, the Inland Revenue has is to appeal to the taxpayer to make payment of that part of the assessment which is not in dispute. There have been, I understand, cases in which the taxpayer has generously responded to that appeal, but there have been a great many more cases in which he has refused to do so, relying upon his legal position in the matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies) said that the taxpayer under the operation of this Clause would be called upon to pay at once the amount which was not in dispute, and that if, later on, it appeared that he had made some overpayment he would have no redress. I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member must not have read the Clause carefully because there is a provision that if any such circumstance as that should arise, the taxpayer would be entitled to repayment.
Over and over again in the course of the debate this proposal has been described as an addition to the tortures to which the Income Tax payer is subjected. I venture to submit that that statement is an abuse of words. There is nothing in the nature of torture in this proposal. It has also been said once or twice that it is the duty of the House of Commons to protect the rights of the taxpayer. That I unhesitatingly concede, but the House of Commons has another duty and it is to see that one taxpayer does not take advantage of any loophole in the law at the expense of the other taxpayers, and that taxpayers should not be able, by withholding a large amount from the Revenue in this way to inflict injustice upon the taxpayers who pay promptly. The hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil put forward the point that if there had been overpayment by the taxpayer then, as in the United States, the taxpayer should be entitled to interest on the amount of the overpayment. I wonder if the hon. and gallant Member is willing to extend that reference to the
Revenue, and if he would call upon the taxpayer to pay interest at the rate of 5 per cent., upon sums which had not been paid when they were legally due.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts could not have been present during the earlier part of the debate upon this Clause or he would not have been led into the assumption that the taxpayer has some reason to suspect that he would be debarred from approaching the special commissioners. That is not the case. As a matter of ordinary administration the taxpayer is always entitled, in the case of an ordinary assessment, to approach the local inspector of taxes and to approach the general commissioners and surely it is only a matter of common sense to assume that he can approach the special commissioners. The hon. Baronet himself admitted that the special commissioners are reasonable men and business men who carry on their duties on business lines, and it is only reasonable to assume that, when a taxpayer receives an intimation that he will be called upon to pay an amount which is regarded as not being in dispute, if he were dissatisfied he certainly would have the opportunity of going to the special commissioners with his claim. It is also to be assumed that if they thought he had a case they would hear it and that they would adjust the matter amicably between them.
I think those are all the new points which have been introduced in the speeches recently delivered. There has been no objection to the purpose of the Clause. I believe that most of the speakers have agreed that it is quite reasonable that when there is an amount which is undisputed the taxpayer should be called upon to pay it and not to leave it as arrears over a considerable time. The only ground of criticism has been as to whether the special commissioners themselves should decide what that amount is to be. We have discussed that matter very fully. I have spoken, I believe, six times in the first hour of this debate. I have made the best explanation that I could make and then my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made the best effort that he could—and from my point of view a very successful effort—to explain what
is involved in the Clause. We have done our best to make the matter clear, and I do not think I can add anything to what has already been said. There is an understanding that the discussion of this Clause should not be prolonged. We have spent now nearly four hours in discussing a matter upon the principle of which the Committee is unanimously agreed and I submit that we ought now to come to a decision.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: With the general principles of this Clause I entirely agree, because we all want to see the Treasury protected, but we object to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not giving way on the slightest possible point. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman, but he cannot be both judge and jury. Opinions have to be decided in the courts of law, and we are not here to accept the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) had been accepted, I should support the Clause, but the right hon. Gentleman takes away any support that I would like to give him, because he is adamant and says, "I do not care whether a taxpayer wants to see the commissioners, but in my opinion he can do it." Surely, if he can do it, there is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not have accepted the Amendment to which I have referred. The right hon. Gentleman must excuse me saying, in reference to his attitude—I do not want to refer to the night before last, when he said, "I will have up to Clause 27"—that that is not the way to help the discussions that are going to take place, and if we find that the right hon. Gentleman will not give way——

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member must keep to the Question.

Sir F. HALL: I am giving my reasons why I cannot support this Clause, because the right hon. Gentleman would not give protection to the taxpayer by giving him the right, in the Clause itself, to appeal personally to the special commissioners in case of need. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman would not concede the slightest point, and I tell him at once that he has taken away any support that I might have given to him. I want to protect the Treasury, but I want also,
and it is my duty, to see that the taxpayer himself is protected. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to adopt the same attitude with regard to all these Amendments, he cannot expect either sympathy or help from this side of the Committee.

Sir B. PETO: The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that his parallel for this Clause was Section 25 of the Act of 1926. I find, on looking at that Section, that it deals with provisions in connection with appeals. It is a Section of considerable length, and the particular words copied in this Clause merely come in the proviso in the end of that Section, which deals with Income Tax appeals under Schedule D. Why does the Treasury want to extend this machinery to appeals in connection with Sur-tax and Super-tax? The right hon. Gentleman told us they would be few in number compared with the great number of questions that arise under Income Tax Schedule D, but though few in number, they might be greater in amount than the whole aggregate—the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he ought to have told us the kind of cases where there would be a dispute with the Treasury as to part of the Surtax income of a taxpayer. There is Clause 12 of this Bill which deals with insurance policies, the interest on premiums on which is not to be liable in future to deduction from Sur-tax. Such a case makes all the difference between the total of a Sur-tax payer's income on one scale and another, and therefore the whole basis on which the income of that taxpayer would be taxed would be different.
In the case of Income Tax, there are so many small exemptions, for children, parents, and so on, that there is a number of different cases in which the taxpayer may think that a part of his income ought not to be taxed or in respect of which he ought to have some allowance, but in the case of Sur-tax it is very much simpler, and I should have thought that was a reason, not for copying the exact words of the proviso in the Act of 1926, but for making it perfectly clear that there must be some measure of agreement between the Surtax payer and the special commissioners as to what part of the income is not in dispute and what part is in dispute. We are now asked to vote on the Clause as
a whole, but before we can do that we ought to have some idea as to what good it will do to the Treasury and what hardships it will impose on the Sur-tax payer.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: When you were in the Chair, Mr. Dunnico, at the beginning of the discussion of this Clause, it was suggested that there should be a general discussion on the first Amendment, and you said that you would select certain Amendments, of which there might be an explanation, and you also intimated that there might be a brief discussion on the Clause standing part.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: You closured it, and that breaks it all.

Mr. SNOWDEN: We have had four hours' discussion of this Clause, which the right hon. Gentleman opposite described as a very minor Clause, and I venture respectfully to suggest, in view of what you said, Mr. Dunnico, and of what was, I believe, repeated by Mr. Young, that the discussion might now be brought to a conclusion.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the arrangement originally made was suggested by you from the Chair, Mr. Dunnico, and I acquiesced in it. I do not want the discussion to go on now, and I should be content to take a Division at once on the Clause, but I do not want any misunderstanding to arise as to what was stated from the Chair. There was no statement at all, I believe, about a discussion on the Clause standing part. We did not discuss whether or not there should be a discussion on the Clause standing part, but we agreed that there should be a general discussion on the first Amendment and that certain other Amendments should be moved with a short statement and divided upon, and that was the extent of the agreement.

Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. I am desirous, if there is any arrangement made, of carrying it out, but I want to make it plain, and I am sure that you, Mr. Dunnico, would be one of the last to say that you, as Chairman, should decide that we should only have short discussions on certain Amendments. During all the time that I have been in the House I have never heard any Chairman give any such decision, and I cannot think that
you, in your position, have given, or would ever dream of giving, a decision that Members of this House were not within their rights in reasonably discussing Amendments.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: My suggestion at the beginning was that the first Amendment and certain other Amendments raised the whole issue of the Clause and it might be preferable to have a general discussion on the first Amendment, and that, if hon. Members wished to divide on one or two points raised, in certain specified subsequent Amendments the divisions could take place after a brief statement by the movers of the Amendments. I do not think we raised the question of a discussion on the Clause standing part, though one assumes that when a general discussion of the Clause has taken place upon an Amendment, the discussion on the Question "That the Clause stand part" will be reduced to a minimum. With regard to the point of Order raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall), it is quite a common practice in the Committee for the Chairman to agree to a certain procedure on certain Amendments, on a distinct understanding that there will be no debate on subsequent Amendments. That is frequently done in the Committee and is a common practice. The Chairman could never meet the wishes of the Committee unless he had power to say, "I am prepared to allow a

general discussion on this Amendment providing that subsequent Amendments are not discussed."

Mr. CHURCHILL: We had some conversation across the Floor with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and it was understood that the Government, would make no charge of any breach of faith if the discussion on the Clause was brief and reasonable. I am certainly of opinion that it has been reasonable, and to determine it now I would consider also to be reasonable.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer answer the straightforward question that I put to him?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It occurred to me when I sat down just now that I had forgotten to deal with the point which the Noble Lord had raised. I am not familiar with the particular case which he mentioned, but I can hardly believe that the Inland Revenue authorities would refuse to accept a large payment that was offered to them. That hardly bears out the allegations of torture which have been made. I think there must have been some special circumstance in the case which the Noble Lord raised.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 156.

Division No. 380.]
AYES.
[7.46 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brothers, M.
Edmunds, J. E.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Buchanan, G.
Egan, W. H.


Alpass, J. H.
Burgess, F. G.
Elmley, Viscount


Ammon, Charles George
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Foot, Isaac


Arnott, John
Baxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Forgan, Dr. Robert


Aske, Sir Robert
Caine, Dorwent Hall-
Freeman, Peter


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cameron, A. G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Ayles, Walter
Cape, Thomas
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Charleton, H. C.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Barnes, Alfred John
Chater, Daniel
Gibbins, Joseph


Barr, James
Church, Major A. G.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Batey, Joseph
Clarke, J. S.
Gill, T. H.


Bellamy, Albert
Cluse, W. S.
Gillett, George M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Glassey, A. E.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gossling, A. G.


Benson, G.
Compton, Joseph
Gould, F.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Cove, William G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Daggar, George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Birkett, W. Norman
Dallas, George
Granville, E.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Dalton, Hugh
Gray, Milner


Bowen, J. W.
Day, Harry
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Dickson, T.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bromfield, William
Dukes, C.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Brooke, W.
Ede, James Chuter
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McEntee, V. L.
Scurr, John


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Sexton, James


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sherwood, G. H.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Shield, George William


Harbord, A.
McShane, John James
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Hardie, George D.
Malone, C. L. Estrange (N'thampton)
Shillaker, J. F.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Markham, S. F.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Haycock, A. W.
Marley, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Hayday, Arthur
Marshall, Fred
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Hayes, John Henry
Mathers, George
Sinkinson, George


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Matters, L. W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Messer, Fred
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Middleton, G.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Millar, J. D.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Herriotts, J.
Mills, J. E.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Milner, Major J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Montague, Frederick
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hoffman, P. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Snell, Harry


Hollins, A.
Morley, Ralph
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hopkin, Daniel
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Horrabin, J. F.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sorensen, R.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mort, D. L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Moses, J. J. H.
Stephen, Campbell


Isaacs, George
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Strauss, G. R.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sullivan, J.


Johnston, Thomas
Muff, G.
Sutton, J. E.


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Murnin, Hugh
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Tillett, Ben


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oldfield, J. R.
Tinker, John Joseph


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Toole, Joseph


Kelly, W. T.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Tout, W. J.


Kennedy, Thomas
Palin, John Henry
Townend, A. E.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Paling, Wilfrid
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Kinley, J.
Palmer, E. T.
Viant, S. P.


Kirkwood, D.
Perry, S. F.
Walkden, A. G.


Knight, Holford
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Walker, J.


Lang, Gordon
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wallace, H. W.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Potts, John S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lathan, G.
Price, M. P.
Watkins, F. C.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Pybus, Percy John
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lawrence, Susan
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lawson, John James
Rathbone, Eleanor
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Raynes, W. R.
Westwood, Joseph


Leach, W.
Richards, R.
White, H. G.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lees, J.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ritson, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Logan, David Gilbert
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Longbottom, A. W.
Romeril, H. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Longden, F.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Rothschild, J. de
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lowth, Thomas
Rowson, Guy
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lunn, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sanders, W. S.



MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sandham, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Sawyer, G. F.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. William


McElwee, A.
Scrymgeour, E.
Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cowan, D. M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Cranborne, Viscount


Atkinson, C.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Carver, Major W. H.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Balniel, Lord
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Berry, Sir George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Davies, Dr Vernon


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Chapman, Sir S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Christie, J. A.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Bracken, B.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Eden, Captain Anthony


Briscoe, Richard George
Colfox, Major William Philip
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Colville, Major D. J.
Elliot, Major Walter E.




England, Colonel A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salmon, Major I.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Fermoy, Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Fielden, E. B.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Savery, S. S.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Skelton, A. N.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Smithers, Waldron


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Meller, R. J.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Gower, Sir Robert
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Thomson, Sir F.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Muirhead, A. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hammersley, S. S.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Train, J.


Hartington, Marquess of
O'Neill, Sir H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Haslam, Henry C.
Penny, Sir George
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wells, Sydney R.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hurd, Percy A.
Remer, John R.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Womersley, W. J.


Iveagh, Countess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)



Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Captain Margesson and Sir Victor




Warrender.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It may possibly—I cannot say certainly—expedite the course of our discussion if at this stage I interrogate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the views which he may have formed as to the progress of our business to-night. In order to do that and to put myself in order, I have moved that we report Progress. The right hon. Gentleman has, no doubt, got in his mind a fairly clear idea of the course that he would like us to pursue this evening, and for fear that I should do anything that might sway the calm flow of his reason by some obstructive ebullition of irritation, I will sit down and invite him to tell us exactly what it is that he would like us to do, and in what manner we can, in his opinion, serve him best.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The Motion, Mr. Dunnico, is that you do report Progress. If that Motion were carried, I think you would have very little progress to report. We have only got through one very minor Clause. I do not wish to have an all-night sitting, and I think that I shall be able to release the Committee by about 12 o'clock. Of course, I would like to get on as far as possible. As a matter of fact,
I would like to get to the end of the Bill, but, in view of the speech which was delivered by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I should hardly be justified in entertaining that rather sanguine expectation. The next Clause, Clause 20, is in the category of minor importance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is of minor importance, although it is introduced for the protection of the taxpayer, in order to reduce the legal costs and expenses in case of summary proceedings being taken against him for the payment of tax. Clause 21, I think, was described by the right hon. Member for Epping on Tuesday as a Clause that he would support. That, again, is in the interests of the taxpayer.

Mr. CHURCHILL indicated dissent.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman must have altered his mind. At any rate, that Clause ought not to keep the Committee very long. Clause 22 and the two succeeding Clauses deal with the quinquennial valuation. That is not a matter which should divide the Committee on principle, whatever differences of opinion there may be on detail. Clauses 23 and 24 are connected and deal with the same point. It is a question of the rearrangement of Income Tax provisions. That matter ought not to be contro-
versial; it is a matter of machinery. The arrangements have been upset by the Local Government Act, and it is proposed that the Income Tax provisions should be rearranged in order to conform with the new divisions and parishes. I should like to get to the end of Clause 25. I do not want to keep the Committee late, and I hope that in view of the very reasonable attitude that I am taking, we shall get as far as I have indicated.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Naturally, the right hon. Gentleman, from his point of view, regards the importance of these Clauses differently from us, but there are a great many points concerning them which we are bound to raise. That applies particularly to Clauses 20 and 21. Clause 22 is a most complicated matter to which some of my hon. Friends have given an immense amount of study, and I am sorry to say that they are not united in the view they take of it. Some of my friends move in one direction and some in another, but both, in spite of their varied views, find no agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is a Clause, therefore, of importance and substance. I agree that Clauses 23 and 24 rather follow from it. So far as Clause 25 is concerned, that, of course, is a matter not likely to be disposed of in a brief period. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that we shall go into these matters with the hope that the differences between us will not be so great as they have been, and that by 12 o'clock we may not find there is so much difference between us as there was the other night. While I cannot make any agreement, I must express my satisfaction that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken us into his confidence at so early a stage and has indicated the procedure which, if we cannot promise to accept, we cannot consider entirely divorced from what we regard to be reasonable.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I only wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for one slight concession. I had intended speaking on the last Clause on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," as I had several matters which I wished to raise.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot raise points on the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was simply pointing out that, so far as I am concerned, I have been willing to forgo the making of some speeches, and, in return, I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet me on one point. I have an important Amendment down on Clause 25, and I think it is a little hard that we should have to raise it late at night. If he could oblige us by not taking Clause 25 to-night, I should be grateful. It would be a suitable matter on which to start off the discussion on the next occasion. It is a matter which I should like to put forward on a proper occasion and not round about midnight when we should probably not wish to extend the discussion.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I put that Motion forward only with a view to getting a statement of the Government's intention, and, while repudiating that we are under any obligation or tie, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 20.—(Amendment of law relating to summary recovery of Income Tax.)

Mr. REMER: I beg to move, in page 17, line 17, at the end, to insert the words:
Providing that this sub-section shall not apply where the said person is acting as a trustee and the sums due are payable by him on behalf of other persons.
The Committee will observe that this Sub-section provides for amending the law relating to the recovery of Income Tax, and it seems to me that inconvenience might be caused if in certain circumstances, where a man had several accounts of his own, and, at the same time, had other accounts for which he was trustee and in which he had no pecuniary interest, he had these accounts mixed up with those of his own. It is for that reason that I think that these words which I propose should be included in this Sub-section in order to make it clear that a, man who is a trustee should not have the accounts mixed up with his own accounts.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think the hon. Member is probably under a
misapprehension in this matter. The main advantage of this Sub-section is with the taxpayer, because these are amounts which have already been assessed and a taxpayer has to pay; for in 99 cases out of 100 the decision of the court in such cases is unfavourable to the taxpayer. To enable the collector to put all these into one summons is a very much cheaper procedure, and although it is an advantage to the collector to have that simplicity of procedure, the major advantage falls to the taxpayer. If the Amendment were carried, a trustee would be debarred from getting the reduction of costs which would follow upon the procedure provided for in the Clause. In these circumstances, I think the hon. Member will see that his Amendment would not be an advantage. The case he had in mind is a case where there are two accounts, and where the taxpayer pays twice, once in regard to his own accounts and once as a trustee. The matter might go further than that, but even in that case, though it would be unlikely that such a case would arise, I do not think any difficulty would occur, and in such a rare case the advantage would be to the taxpayer. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. REMER: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has so lucidly explained matters. I agree that possibly the Amendment goes further than I had hoped. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to move in page 17, line 18, to leave out Subsection (2).
I do so in no unfriendly spirit, but in order to obtain from the Financial Secretary an intimation of the real purpose and scope of this Clause. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer painted it in too rosy colours when he said that it was a concession to taxpayers to avoid the cost of litigation in High Courts and to give him the great advantage of summary jurisdiction. I frankly did not believe the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he was stating the whole of his case, for I have no doubt the suggestion comes from the revenue
officials, and it is more for their convenience than for the convenience of the taxpayers. The procedure in a, court of summary jurisdiction makes it easier for revenue officers to get their money than does the procedure in the High Court. There is this point. The provision for recovery which was originally intended for small sums under £50 is now going to be extended to larger sums. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that is an advantage for the taxpayer. I venture to disagree. It may well compel the slow and unwilling taxpayer to pay up sooner, but I do not think it can be said to be an advantage to the taxpayer. For summary procedure is now to be extended to sums of £50 where they are part of larger sums paid by instalments, which is a very different thing. One can see that the taxpayer could make an agreement with the revenue authorities to pay by instalments, and then the authorities could come down on him under this summary procedure. I am not being unduly critical, but this is what I conceive to be the situation. The principle of this Clause is to extend summary jurisdiction from very small sums of money to larger sums where they are paid by instalments. Whether this is justified is a matter for the Committee to decide.
There is one reference which I would like to make. I think it is undesirable that this Committee should be asked to pass Amendments without knowing what they are about. There is a reference to Section 22 of the Finance Act of 1928. That looks like any other reference, as if there was nothing uncommon about it, but, as a matter of fact, there is something very peculiar about it. It provides the extension to Northern Ireland and I hold that Members for Northern Ireland with their tradition of Never Surrender should at least be apprised that this does apply to that country. It is a somewhat long Section, and I will not read it. It refers to three or four Acts of Parliament relating to Northern Ireland, and, if any Northern Ireland Member, now that his notice has been brought to the matter, wishes to discuss it, I would be willing to lend him this edition of the Statute.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I understand that the hon. Gentleman did not put down the Amendment because of any hostility, but in order to elicit from me
some explanation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this was an advantage to the taxpayer and that it can quite easily be shown that it is. The hon. Member presumed that it was also of some advantage to the Inland Revenue. It is in the sense that anything which works towards simplicity and enables these matters to be cleared up more easily is an advantage to the collection of the revenue. For that reason, we should like to see this Subsection carried.
Let me describe the effect. At the present time, if one of these instalments is under £50, the collector can take summary proceedings to endeavour to obtain the collection of that amount. If, however, the two instalments are over £50, then, unless he has already collected the first, by the time that the second instalment becomes due, he is unable to use the summary procedure in order to collect the second, because the amount owing by the taxpayer is over £50, and he has to go to the High Court instead of to a summary court. The effect of that is this. He will press the taxpayer at an earlier stage, because he will try to collect the first instalment before it becomes too late. If, however, this Sub-section stands, he can, if he think it desirable, give the taxpayer a little more latitude, and he will not mind the first instalment running into the second half of the year, but, if he now gives the taxpayer a little bit of grace which runs into the second half of the year, and finds it necessary after all to take proceedings, he has to go to the High Court.
This Sub-section will enable him to give the taxpayer a little longer in certain cases to pay, and, in the second place, if it is still necessary to proceed, he will be able to do it at smaller expense which, in the great bulk of cases, falls on the taxpayer. The hon. Member will see, therefore, that, although it is an advantage to the collector to take this course, there is also an advantage to the taxpayer in the procedure suggested. The Government therefore cannot accept the Amendment.

Major LLEWELLIN: If, as the Financial Secretary has said, there is some advantage to the taxpayer, it is not really a very apparent one in this new summary procedure. If it were such an advantage to the person who owes the money to have the money taken in this
summary way, I should have thought there could have been included also in this Clause a converse provision that, where a rebate is due from the commissioners, as it often is, the subject should be able to recover that summarily from them. There are a number of instances which I have in mind where it has been very difficult to get that refund paid at all by the Income Tax authorities. Possibly the Financial Secretary might bear that in mind, and make some such provision if it really is for the advantage of those who owe the money.

Major ROSS: The latter part of this Sub-section, although it is a camouflaged piece of drafting, refers to Northern Ireland, because it extends the mischief of Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1928. I must refer to the Acts with which we are concerned. Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1928, applied the system of recovery of Income Tax by summary proceedings to Northern Ireland, and overruled an Act called the Small Debts (Ireland) Act, of 1859. I look on this further extension of that principle with a great deal of anxiety and suspicion. The Small Debts (Ireland) Act, although it is not a modern Act, was drafted with particular reference to and knowledge of the conditions in Ireland, and of the capacity of the courts of summary jurisdiction. I should like to read a portion of Section 5, to which reference is made in Section 22 of the Finance Act of 1928, which dealt with the powers of courts of summary jurisdiction in Ireland as to deciding civil disputes, and which limited those powers very drastically. In the prologue, it says:
It shall be lawful for any justice or justices at petty sessions to hear and determine certain disputes concerning any sums due for wages, or for hire of any horse, or for tuition, and to make such Order as they shall see fit for payment, provided the sum shall not exceed ten pounds.
We have here a definite type of dispute. Compare that with the general jurisdiction which is limited to £2. The Section goes on:
That it shall be lawful for the justice or justices at petty sessions to hear and determine causes for the recovery of debts between party and party under the value of two pounds, where the right to recover such debts shall have accrued within twelve calendar months before the day of the date of the process hereinafter mentioned.
This Section goes, on for another page.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out that we are discussing a specific practice and not a general practice.

Major ROSS: I cannot surely be more in order than when I am referring to a Statute, namely Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1928, which is referred to in this Clause.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only thing involved in this Sub-section is Income Tax due. It does not cover any other kind of debt, and I cannot permit the hon. and gallant Member to go over the whole field of how other forms of debt are recovered. This Sub-section exclusively and distinctly concerns Income Tax due and its recovery.

Major ROSS: If you had permitted me to reply to the point which you raised, I do not think that you would have questioned the propriety of what I said. We have in the Sub-section under discussion a reference to the Finance Act of 1928, and to Section 22 in that Act. That Section is an overriding Section. It says:
Notwithstanding anything in Section Five of the Small Debts (Ireland) Act, 1859,
and it over-rides that Section of the 1859 Act. If that Section were not overruled, it would not be possible to apply Sub-section (2) of this Clause at all, and, in my submission, there can be no question that I was in order, and I was trying to keep my remarks within reasonable compass, and, for that reason, I read only a small portion of the Section which was definitely relevant.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member must permit me to decide that. I am quite prepared to allow him to state his case fully, but I must state definitely that the only question involved is Income Tax due and the proposed method of recovering that Income Tax due. The hon. and gallant Member must not go outside the provision of the Sub-section.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: On that point of Order. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman was referring to that part of the 1859 Act which applies to Income Tax only. He was merely using the illustration of the 1859 Act, and his intention was only to refer to it where it applies to Income Tax. That is not a modern
Act and its phraseology may sound strange, but I would like you to realise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was only referring to the Income Tax part of it and not to the general collection of debt.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member may have meant that, but he did not confine his remarks to that.

Major ROSS: I say with the greatest respect that I have merely read a Section of an Act which is being repealed or limited in its effect by the Sub-section under discussion. I am entirely in your, hands, and I bow to your Ruling, but it is beyond me to understand why I cannot refer to an Act which is being definitely, limited by this Sub-section. However, as, you say I must not discuss it, I will not deal with it further, and will pass on to, the general position. The jurisdiction of, small Courts is being extended. Very large sums of money, if dealt with piecemeal and bit by bit, can be decided by Courts of summary jurisdiction which are accustomed to dealing with more trivial problems. Those responsible for this Subsection must realise that in a Court of summary jurisdiction in Ireland we have not a Court of very wide experience of business or finance, and if points of technical difficulty were to arise the parties would be at the mercy of a bench of magistrates who had not been appointed with the idea that they would have to deal with such problems, but appointed, rather, as persons who enjoy the confidence of their neighbours in dealing with the minor affairs of life.
I would like the Financial Secretary to tell me whether this Sub-section has been settled in consultation with the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland, and has his assent. He is the authority most closely concerned and is conversant with the whole problem from the Northern Ireland point of view. If it is his view that this is an appropriate tribunal, and that tax collecting can be properly and adequately carried out by it I shall be perfectly content, but unless I have that assurance I must oppose this Sub-section. It is of the utmost importance that we should know whether the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland approves of this Sub-section or not.

Mr. ATKINSON: There is an objection to this Clause on a matter of principle which I should like to point out. Under the Act of 1924, if Income Tax to an amount less than £50 is owing it can be recovered summarily; but where you have £40 owing under one instalment and £40 under another instalment, the total owing being £80, summary proceedings cannot be adopted. What this Sub-section says is that although a man may owe more than £50 for Income Tax the Revenue officer can split the debt into two and first take summary proceedings to recover one instalment and then take proceedings to recover the other instalment. In other words, where the sum due is payable by instalment, and the amount of an instalment is less than £50, that can be recovered summarily, although the total debt exceeds £50. Surely that is wrong in principle.
County Court jurisdiction is limited to sums of £100. Supposing A owes B £150, payable by two instalments, and that they are both due. The person to whom the money is owing cannot split his debt and claim half of it in the County Court one day and the next day issue another summons for the other half. There may be instalments of Income Tax covering two years. Say a man owes £40 for Income Tax in January and £40 in July last year, and £40 for January and £40 for July this year. That would make a total of £160. Under the present law he could not be sued by summary process, because he is owing £160, but what the Income Tax officials would do would be to issue four summonses one after the other each for a separate instalment. That would be driving a carriage-and-pair clean through the provision's of the Act of 1924.
It may be said that this Sub-section is an advantage. But is it an advantage? It is only points of law that really arise on these proceedings for the recovery of Income Tax. There might be a question of fact as to whether the sum had been paid, but usually, if there is any defence, it concerns a matter of law. The system of appeal from courts of summary jurisdiction is a very complicated one. You have to get the magistrate to state a case and then go to the Divisional Court. You have to have those two hearings before you are able to get a point of law properly argued. If the
revenue officer goes to the High Court, as he has to do now where the sum owing is more than £50, he takes out a summons for judgment under what we call Order 14, and it comes before the Registrar, and if any point is raised the parties can go at once to a Judge in Chambers, appearing by a solicitor or personally and get the point in dispute dealt with in the cheapest and the most rapid way possible.
That is a very great advantage to the litigant. It is not a question of calling evidence in these eases. The point is always something technical, and in the one case you have to go before the magistrate and get him to state a, case and then go to the Divisional Court, before three judges, where you are bound to appear by counsel; and in the other case the matter comes before the Registrar and any point of law can be taken at once to a Julge in Chambers. You can do that at very little expense, and you can do it very quickly. If the amount owing is more than £50, proceedings have to be taken in the High Court before a judge. It is all very well to take summary proceedings where there is no defence, and in that case the man must pay. If there is a defence, the High Court proceedings are quicker than proceedings before the magistrate, and the point at issue only arises where there is a defence. The procedure which is provided for under this Clause is not an advantage to the taxpayer or to the revenue officer, because in both cases they want matters decided speedily, and therefore they should be decided by a High Court Judge wherever that is possible. It is not a fair way of dealing with these matters to split up the proceedings for small debts in this way, because by that process you deprive the taxpayer of the right of going before a judge, which he could do at very little expense.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am a little suspicious in regard to the statement made by the Financial Secretary, because he talked a good deal about more latitude being given to the taxpayer by this Clause, and he said that all the Clause did was to enable the Income Tax authorities to press for payment at an earlier stage.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Although the Financial Secretary used a good deal of verbiage which will probably hide his meaning, that is, in effect, what he said, and that is why my suspicions have been aroused. Now we know that by this Clause the Government are proposing to do something that may increase the burden placed upon the taxpayer. When we hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer stating that this is a helpful Clause we must be a little suspicious. I do not say that the Financial Secretary realises that what I am stating is going to happen, but it has been pointed out clearly and legally that the actual effects of this Clause will be that more direct pressure will be placed upon the taxpayer. I think that is clear to every Member of the House.
I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to make us a slight concession. If the hon. Member believes that this Clause will only have the effect which he has described, may I ask if he would be willing to insert a proviso during the Report stage to the effect that this proposal will not be used where there is any technical point of law involved. I think that is a proviso which the staff of the Department could easily draft in order to provide that Sub-section (2) of this Clause could not be used where there was a really technical legal point involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Major Ross), who is one of the representatives of Northern Ireland raised an important point in connection with the Small Debts Act of Ireland, 1859.
I am not a lawyer, and I do not intend to go into the technicalities of that Act, but the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry ought not to be passed over very lightly because we are dealing with an important Act which repeals another Act. I think it is only right that an English Member should say that nothing should be done under this Sub-section to offend the feelings of the people in Northern Ireland, whose services to this country we all greatly appreciate. I think we should insist upon knowing, before a vote is taken upon this Amendment, whether the approval of the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland has been obtained on the point dealt with in this Sub-section. Perhaps the Financial Secretary is prepared to accept the suggestion which I
have made in order to make this Subsection a little more clear.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I want to put one or two points to the Financial Secretary. In the first place, I should like to ask why it is necessary, in 1930, to put this provision into the Finance Bill at all. Income Tax, and the recovery of debts in connection with Income Tax, have been proceeding for 100 years or more. Will the Financial Secretary tell us what the difficulties have been—in what cases there has been a difficulty in collecting money due as a debt, because the amount was too small or too large, in certain courts which in normal cases deal with these debts, and what is happening to make it necessary for us to consider this matter now? We are not likely to oppose a Clause which gives to the Revenue the right and opportunity of getting that to which it is entitled, or to put any obstacle in the way of an enactment which will give effect to that object. But we are here to protect the taxpayer from the inclusion of what we consider might be harassing and unfair pressure put upon him by the Inland Revenue Department.
I have taken part in debates in which Ulster has been affected in this House, and I believe that on one occasion, in the last Parliament, I was in charge of a Bill, dealing with pensions in Northern Ireland, I remember that it was a most delicate position with which we had to deal. Again, there was a question, I think under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, of some agricultural land grants or purchase assistance for Ulster which we had to get carried forward. The hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry (Major Ross) has raised a point which the Financial Secretary cannot allow to go by without giving us a definite answer. We cannot allow anything to pass which might give offence or might work an injustice to the people of Ulster, and, therefore, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us quite definitely whether he has consulted the Northern Ireland authorities, whether they are in agreement with the action that he is now taking, and what effect this enactment will have on the taxpayers in Northern Ireland in connection with Income Tax.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I quite appreciate the spirit in which the various
points on this Sub-section have been put forward by the Opposition, and I will do my best to deal with them as they have been raied. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry (Major Ross), as to whether the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland was consulted, the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland was consulted with regard to the Finance Act of 1928, in which the main principle with which we are now concerned was included; and this very slight alteration which is now introduced in Sub-section (2) was not considered to be of sufficient importance to render it necessary to consult him specifically about it.
The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) asked me what was the whole object of this Sub-section. The object is that of simplification generally, and I think it is quite reasonable that we should attempt to simplify in every way possible, as we go along, the working of the Income Tax laws. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson), I do not think that the position is quite as he presents it. The tax collector has the right to take summary proceedings for any instalment below £50 within a specified time——

Mr. ATKINSON: Only if not more than £50 is owing.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If there is only one instalment owing, and that is below he can, up to a specific date—I think the 30th June—take proceedings to recover it summarily. The effect of not carrying this particular Sub-section would be, not to give the taxpayer greater grace, but to hurry up the summary proceedings, because the tax collector, in order to get the summary process, must take it before a certain date. Therefore, the effect of the law as it stands is to force the tax collector who wants to make use of this machinery to act, it may be, unnecessarily precipitately or unnecessarily harshly in order to secure the payment of the debt summarily. The effect of carrying this Sub-section will be, in a great many cases, to give the taxpayer a little longer time, and I should have thought that for that reason it was mainly for the benefit of the taxpayer. Therefore, I do not think that the difficulty and hardship which the hon. and learned
Member seems to imagine will arise correctly represents the facts.
It is not a question of splitting up one debt into four parts, because the tax collector already has the right, in the first six months, to take proceedings summarily for the first instalment, and, having collected that, he can, in the second half-year, take summary proceedings for the next instalment. The only effect of this Sub-section will be that he will be able to delay taking summary proceedings for the first instalment until a little later, when he would be able at the same time to take summary proceedings for the second instalment. In the great majority of cases, at any rate, and I should have thought in all, that would give an advantage to the taxpayer, because the tax collector who thinks he will give the taxpayer the benefit of the doubt, and let the matter run on for a little time, will not feel that he must take action at once, lest, if he once allows the taxpayer to get out of his grasp, he may be driven out of summary proceedings into High Court proceedings, which will be more troublesome. Therefore, I still adhere to my view that this Subsection is really in the nature of an advantage to the taxpayer, because it is a simplification of the procedure.

9.0 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: The Financial Secretary has appeared in a new role this evening, as a sort of advocate and friend and sympathetic adviser of the taxpayers of the country. When he says that in his official capacity, I rather suspect him. If he were speaking to us in his capacity as a private citizen, I should have the greatest confidence in his statement; but, as I understand it—and this will be a matter of interest to the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight)—the Financial Secretary is really out to delay the obtaining of the ordinary revenue from the taxes of the country. This Subsection is commended to us as giving further time, so that this provision, instead of causing the revenue to be collected quickly, will afford means whereby the collector of taxes can delay obtaining payment from the citizen who is affected by this particular Clause.
I wonder whether that is the real reason for this Clause. If so, I cannot understand the Inland Revenue authorities and the Treasury urging the Financial Secretary to include this provision in the
Bill. I should have thought that all the reasons, both from the Inland Revenue point of view and from the Parliamentary point of view, would have been against it. Once again the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in this Sub-section, is overloading his Bill. So far as I have been able to understand it, there is no immediate necessity for it except to give some further consideration to the poor taxpayer. Really—I will put this as politely as I can—it needs a little further consideration from the Committee. I think the Inland Revenue officers conduct their disagreeable duties fairly and justly, but this is the first occasion I have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary say on the Finance Bill that this is really for the benefit of the poor taxpayer. That is the view the hon. Gentleman has put before the Committee, and a very extraordinary view it is. But is that the real reason and object of the Clause? The right hon. Gentleman said the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland has been consulted so far as Clause 22 of the Act of 1928 is concerned. That is quite a proper and useful provision, but it is rather different from the proposals contained in this Clause. Is it not rather that the tax authorities require that, when a consider-siderable sum is payable by instalments, they want a summary method of obtaining judgment and execution if the amount is not paid? I suppose the reason of the Clause is to give a further weapon to the authorities to obtain early payment by a, quick method of sums alleged to be due. Does the hon. Gentleman really think there is any particular desire to show further consideration for the taxpayer? At present the taxpayer has certain valuable rights of going to the Courts, and they are to be taken away. Why should these Clauses be incorporated at present? It is said that representations were made to the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland in 1928. That is a good many years ago. At a time when so many burdens are being imposed on the taxpayer, some little consideration might be shown him and some loophole to escape from the meshes of the Treasury might be permitted him, and he might be allowed a chance of running away from the financial grasp of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
This is another point, one out of many, which certain people have induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include in his Bill. I suppose that this is a protection to him, but, whether it is so or not, certainly on the statement made to us from the Treasury Bench there is no particular reason in this year of all years for adopting this proposal. When the country is suffering so much under the burden of heavy taxation and the influence of a Socialist Government, surely we might very well avoid this further attempt to penalise in one way or another the taxpayers of the country. Let the Committee reject the proposition which is being put forward by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that this is a Clause to do a good turn for the taxpayers of the country. I do not think that even Members on his own side of the Committee will accept that view.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Oh, yes.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths), who is sitting next to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills), is, of course, of a more simple disposition than the hon. Member for Dartford, who agree with me that this provision is made with the view of obtaining further revenue for the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Pontypool is older and probably has a sweeter disposition, but those of us who have to face the ordinary rigours of life and the affairs of every day know that no Clause would be incorporated in the Bill unless it really was of some financial advantage to the Exchequer of this country. Let us put on one side the suggestion that by this means we are going to do a good turn and put something into the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. We cannot accept such a proposition. As that, apparently, is the only reason which the Financial Secretary can put forward for the acceptance of this Clause, I hope that hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and the hon. Member for Dartford, will join in attempting to reject this Clause.

Dr. BURGIN: The meaning of this Clause is tolerably plain. It is a Clause which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) says, might well have been found in an Administration of Justice Bill rather
than in a Finance Bill. Its main provisions are changes in procedure. The first and the third Sub-sections are entirely due to defects which have been discovered in the existing rules of procedure. It is convenient where the revenue authorities are taking proceedings against an individual that they should be able to include their demands in one form of complaint and in one form of summons. Nobody really is going to object on behalf of the taxpayer to receiving one document of a particular colour rather than a sheaf of documents. On the whole, it is probably in the interests of the taxpayer, who, admittedly, under this Clause, owes money, that it is in one document or in one summons that the whole of the demands of the Revenue should be made. The third Sub-section is merely a defect arising out of a collector dying before the decision of the court——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss that Sub-section now.

Dr. BURGIN: I obey your ruling instantly. It was merely used by way of example. We are for the moment on the second Sub-section and the proposal is that it should be deleted from the Clause. That is really the only part of the Clause which raises a new suggestion. Down to the present time the summary remedy available to the Inland Revenue has been confined to cases where the total amount is £50 or under. The suggestion in this Clause is, that where an instalment is due and that instalment does not exceed £50, the summary remedy should be available to the Revenue for the collection of that instalment, although there might be due on another occasion sums which added together exceeded £50. That is the purport of the Sub-section which we are discussing. It is well that the Committee should understand the position. Broadly speaking, when there is money due, a summary remedy is of advantage rather than a disadvantage. During the time of the suffragette trouble, it became necessary to try at the Old Bailey every person who broke a plate-glass window exceeding in value £5, because there was no law which permitted a summary trial where the amount of damage exceeded £5. We had to have a Section of the Administration of Justice Act expressly to increase the limit from £5 to, curiously
enough, the figure contained in one of the Amendments to-night of £20. There is no one living who can say that the increase from £5 to £20 was not a definite advantage to the State, and therefore to every person living in it, because it enabled what was really a political demonstration to be tried summarily.
The proposal of His Majesty's Government in this Sub-section is that the old remedy available to the Inland Revenue authorities where the total amount due was £50 or under should be available where any one instalment does not exceed that figure. I think that if a taxpayer owes money to the Inland Revenue—that is the supposition behind this Clause—and if that sum is payable by instalments, and if those instalments do not exceed £50, it is not an undue extension to say that each of these is a separate debt, and that the summary remedy may be applicable. It is obvious that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer hold that that would be a desirable increase of summary powers of the Inland Revenue. We know a great deal of the expense of litigation and of the expense of recovery, and I think it would ill behove a legal Member of this House to object to a Clause which renders a summary remedy applicable for the recovery of an admitted debt. I think that this Sub-section, which gives to the Treasury a power which they admittedly possess where there is a debt of £50, might reasonably be held to be within their power if a debt is payable by instalments, and those instalments do not exceed £50.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member has not told us whether he thinks that this Sub-section is in the interests of the taxpayer or not.

Dr. BURGIN: I should regard any opinion of mine on that subject as not being worthy of much consideration, but I should have thought that it was entirely in the interests of the taxpayer that a summary remedy should be available, and that the costs added to his debt were in consequence much lighter. I think that this Sub-section ought to receive the attention and the approval of the Committee.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 137.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) in page 17, line 33, at the end, to add the words:
Providing that due notice is given to the person sued that a successor has been appointed.

Mr. REMER: I am rather afraid that this Amendment has been put down under a misapprehension on my part, but I desire to move it formally in order to
have an explanation from the Financial Secretary. I understand, from an explanation which was given a few moments ago, that, if my Amendment is carried, it will be against the taxpayer, and, if that is so, I do not wish to press it. I put it down with the idea of helping the taxpayer.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member moving his Amendment, in page 17, line 33?

Mr. REMER: I am afraid I did not quite understand which Amendment was being called.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I distinctly said that I was calling upon the hon. Member to move his Amendment in page 17, line 33, at the end, to add the words "provided due notice is given," etc.

Mr. REMER: I beg to move, in page 17, line 33, at the end, to add the words:
Providing that due notice is given to the person sued that a successor has been appointed.
Owing to the great difficulty of hearing you, Mr. Dunnico, because of the conversation that was taking place at the time, I thought that you were calling me to move my Amendment in page 17 to leave out the word "fifty" and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty." All I have to say is that I think due notice ought to be given to the person sued that a successor has been appointed.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The principle of the Amendment is quite simple and satisfactory, and though I am not prepared to accept the identical words proposed, I should be prepared to accept the Amendment in the following form:
In cases to which the sub-section applies notice of the change shall, as soon as may be, be given to the successor of the person against whom proceedings are pending.

Mr. REMER: I accept the Amendment in that form.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. REMER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 17, line 33, at the end, add the words:
In cases to which the sub-section applies notice of the change shall, as soon as may be, be given by the successor to the person against whom proceedings are pending."—[Mr. Remer.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I wish to raise a few points on this Clause for the reason
that I had an Amendment down which, I was given to understand, would most certainly be called. The first point I wish to raise is that, as far as I can see, there is nothing in this Clause which purports to be a concession to the taxpayer, or which in any way removes one of the greatest grievances which the taxpayer suffers at present. If he is a man, he suffers at present from the fact that he is liable, or may be in certain cases, for the debts incurred by his wife. I want to know whether, under this Clause which is for the recovery of debts, in all cases the husband is liable for the debts of his wife? That covers two or three different points. The first point I wish the Financial Secretary to explain clearly is this: Supposing a husband and wife are assessed separately, is there any case under this Clause where the husband can be made liable and summarily proceeded against for his wife's debts? Again, where they are assessed together, which is the other form of assessment——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is nothing in this Clause which raises the question of husband and wife, and I cannot allow the hon. Member to discuss it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I would ask, what does "one person" mean in the Clause? Surely that refers to a person who is assessed, and where there is double assessment and husband and wife are included. Surely that does enable me to bring in the question of husband and wife?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that there is no such term as "double assessment," but only "assessment."

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is the point I was raising. It is a single assessment where two people are assessed as one. That is exactly the Ruling I wanted, and I ask the Minister to explain how under this Clause——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no such thing as double assessment, and, consequently, discussion as to husband and wife does not arise on this Clause. If the hon. Member wishes to raise that, he must raise it on some other question and at some other time, and not now.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I understand you to say, Mr. Dunnico, that there is no
double assessment. I do not wish to disagree with your Ruling for a moment, but, in fact, there are double assessments always, except when a special assessment is applied for. If the question can be properly thrashed out now, it is proper that it should be, as the words "one person" are used in this Clause. In that case my hon. Friend and any of his legal friends will have an opportunity of explaining the extraordinary anomalies that arise in the double assessment of husband and wife. This is really a very great grievance, and I want to call attention to it, if I am entitles to discuss it. You said there was no such thing as double assessment. Not being a married person—I am only a bachelor——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: So far as this Clause is concerned, it is not a question of double or single assessment. I am informed there is no such term as "double assessment," but whether that is right or not, the question cannot be raised on this Clause. My Ruling is quite definite and quite firm, and I refuse to move from it.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: With great respect, when you make a Ruling there is always some reason for the Ruling.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: My Ruling is that it does not arise on the Clause now before the Committee. It is quite definite, and no point of Order can arise upon it. It is my final Ruling.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I express great regret for having questioned your Ruling, but I understood you to give as a reason for it that there was no such thing as double assessment.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I certainly will not go further into the matter as to whether one person is two or not. I do not think there was really very much point in raising it, because I knew that the occupants of the Treasury Bench were perfectly incompetent to answer, but I thought I would give them a chance. I will leave it, because I have a number of other points to raise which, being simpler and less complicated, and not of a technical, legal nature, may be brought within the province of their ability to answer. On the first Sub-section of this Clause I wish to have information regarding certain points. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was
fortunate enough not to be questioned particularly about this rather complicated Sub-section—[Interruption.]

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Go on!

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member opposite from the Clydeside seems to be endeavouring to take control of his subsection of the party, but in view of the Ruling which has already been given in reference to this Sub-section as to there being no double assessments I feel sure that a great many people will be interested to hear what explanation the Financial Secretary has to offer on this question. Here we have one assessment, but various sums can be included in the one order, warrant or other document. What has been confusing me, and what I would like the Financial Secretary to explain, is exactly what is meant by the following passage:
every such document as aforesaid shall, as respects each such sum, be construed as a separate document and its invalidity as respects any one such sum shall not affect its validity as respects any other such sum."[Interruption.]

Mr. REMER: On a point of Order. May I call attention to the organised disorder which is taking place on the other side of the Committee, and to ask if it is in order for hon. Members deliberately to cough and make noises?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I ask if it is in order in a discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," for Members to read whole passages from the Clause?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I understood the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) to state that this was disorganised interruption. That is not true; it is organised interruption.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sure that if the Committee will keep good-tempered and quiet we shall get on with the business much more quickly than if we have these interruptions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry that this complicated passage is so bad that it affects the voices of some hon. Members below the Gangway, but I assure them that if the Financial Secretary will only endeavour to explain this passage which we have not been permitted to discuss in any way, I shall not raise any other
point on this Sub-section. I think, however, we are entitled, as this Sub-section may involve penalties, to a clear explanation of it. In connection with the Subsection (3), it would appear that when a collector dies, or is removed, there is a distinct possibility that the taxpayer may have applications made by two separate officials, and I wish to know what is to be the procedure of the taxpayer in those conditions. Is it possible in the event of an accident of that sort for the position to be dealt with simply and easily? In the interest of the taxpayer that is a question which can reasonably be asked on this occasion. If I get satisfactory answers on these and the other points which I have raised in regard to this Clause, then my last remark upon it—or it may be my last remark upon it, if I am not subjected to further interruptions—is that I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary have endeavoured to make it appear that this Sub-section to which I have referred is something different from what I suspect it to be.

Major ROSS: I wish to allude again to that portion of Sub-section (2) which refers definitely and exclusively to Northern Ireland. That is the passage which refers back to the Finance Act of 1928. The Financial Secretary has quite frankly told us that although the previous Government consulted with the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland as regards the provision inserted in that Finance Act, no such consultation has taken place with regard to the extension of that principle which we find in the present Bill. In my opinion that is a most unsatisfactory position in regard to a matter of such consequence. It may or it may not be that the Government of Northern Ireland would approve of the extension of the principle which was adopted in the Act of 1928, but they have not had the opportunity of doing so. The only authorities who have considered this passage—which affects Northern Ireland exclusively—have been the Government here, on which there is not one representative of Northern Ireland, and the civil servants of the Treasury who are not well seized of local conditions in that country. If this proposal is typical of the way in which the Government proposed to deal with their jurisdiction over that portion of the United
Kingdom, I think it is a very bad outlook and a most unsatisfactory situation. I wonder if it is not possible for the Financial Secretary to give a somewhat more hopeful statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to this part of the United Kingdom, than he has given up to the present. I found his previous statement disquieting and most unsatisfactory.

Mr. REID: It is possible that if the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the Government of Northern Ireland in this matter, he may, by interfering in a summary jurisdiction subject to a separate organisation, be creating a practical difficulty. I am not objecting to this Clause, but we do not want these practical difficulties arising, and if the Financial Secretary can tell us that before the matter goes further he will consult the legal advisers of the Government of Northern Ireland, and see that no practical difficulty will arise out of this Clause, I shall be quite satisfied.

CLAUSE 22.—(Valuation for purposes of Schedules A and B to be made quin-quennially in Great Britain.)

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Remer.

Mr. REMER rose——

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On a point of Order. I understood from your predecessor that the first Amendment on the Paper to this Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) is either out of order or not selected. I rather gathered that it was considered out of order. On it, I had hoped to raise the whole question of the London valuation, and the inclusion of London in the new Income Tax valuation. I cannot see how it is out of order to discuss that matter.

The CHAIRMAN: I called on the hon Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) to move his Amendment.

Mr. REMER: I beg to move, in page 18, line 3, to leave out the word "quin-quennial."
There are numerous consequential Amendments following. The next Amendment is to insert after the word "revaluation" in line 3, the words "every ten years."
I have put it in the English language because I do not know what the Latin is for "ten years" to replace "quinquennial." It does seem to me that to have these revaluations every five years is a waste of public money. I cannot see what is the necessity for having reassessments as often as every five years. It must be well known to everybody that property does not increase so rapidly that it can be worth the public expenditure which is entailed in having revaluation every five years. I want to suggest that this is an entire breach of pledge, and that during the last Government there were pledges given by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), in which he definitely promised property owners that under no circumstances whatever should the valuations under the Rating Act be used to increase the assessments of property during the period that these assessments were being enforced. I cannot see what advantage there is to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, because all that is wanted is that the property owners of the country shall be divided so as to provide equally a fair amount. May I point out also to the Chancellor that there are many property owners who let their property on a lease, possibly for 10 years, and that during that period they are going to have forced upon them
revaluation of their properties and an alteration of their assessment which will put them at a considerable disadvantage by having a great portion of their rents taken away from them in the form of taxation.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The hon Member proposes that, instead of the suggested quinquennial revaluation, there should be, to use the English word, a 10-year valuation. It was the practice, I believe, for a considerable time about 15 or 20 years ago to have this quinquennial revaluation, but this was suspended during the War, and there has not been any revaluation of property since 1922 or 1923. Therefore, assessments for Income Tax are on the values fixed eight or 10 years ago. The purpose of Schedule A is to get Income Tax on the income which is derived from property. There are certain concessions made for repairs, and therefore it is not on a gross amount that the tax is paid. I think the Committee will agree that as far as it is possible, the owner of properties should pay on that part of his income which may be regarded as net income. The value of property has in a vast number of cases changed materially since the last valuation. Where a person is assessed under Schedule A, and proves that there has been some reduction in the income of his property, he is entitled in the interim to ask for and get a reduction of the assessment. Five years is a very reasonable period to make these revaluations. The precedent is the Rating and Valuation Act of three or four years ago. I do not know anything about the pledge of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I can hardly believe that the hon. Gentleman quite clearly and accurately interpreted the pledge, if one were given, because in the Provinces, although the valuation for rating purposes is taken as a help in fixing the valuations for Income Tax purposes under Schedule A, it is not a determining factor.
The main objection to the hon. Member's Amendment is that 10 years is far too long. There might be the widest change in valuation during such a long period. The hon. Member said something about fairness as between taxpayer and taxpayer. If we had a large class which
pays Income Tax much below their real income from property, it would be unfair to other bodies of taxpayers, because a certain amount of revenue must be raised, and, if one section is paying less than in justice they ought to pay, another section of the community must make it up and must pay a larger proportionate share. I am sure that the proposal which we are making here in regard to a quinquennial valuation is one which will commend itself as a practical proposition.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I select is that in the name of the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson)—in page 18, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided always that any re-assesment of agricultural land made by virtue of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, shall not be taken into consideration when a revaluation of agricultural land for assessment under Schedules A and B is made in 1931–32, or in any quinquennial revaluation.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On a point of Order. I understand that you have ruled out of order my Amendment in page 18, line 4, after the word "Britain" to insert the words
except such lands, tenements, and hereditaments in the administrative county of London with respect to which the valuation list under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, is by that Act made conclusive for purposes of Income Tax.
I beg to submit that this Amendment is in order, and it would save time if it were selected now.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member, I think, sees that this Amendment will raise the whole question of the inclusion or exclusion of London. That matter is of such importance that it would be better to raise it in a more appropriate place, which is in Clause 26.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I bow humbly to anything which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, and I am glad that he recognises the importance of the Amendment. I submit, however, that the proper moment to bring it forward is on the first possible occasion on which the whole of this subject matter is discussed, and that Clause 22 begins the discussion and raises this particular question absolutely and specifically. Under Clause 22 a new valuation is contemplated, and I submit that the proper place to insert words which would exclude London is in the
Clause where the general proposition is raised. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will notice that in line 6 the year 1931–32 is mentioned. That would mean a new valuation quite apart from the valuation of 1930–31 which is going on in the Metropolis under the Act of 1869. I really cannot see how my Amendment can be out of order. I may be told that it would be more convenient to raise the question on Clause 26.

The CHAIRMAN: I told the hon. Member that his Amendment was equivalent to omitting Clause 26, and, even if that were not so, that the proper place on which to bring it forward was on Clause 26.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I understood that it was ruled out of order.

The CHAIRMAN: I said the reason why I had come to a decision not to call it was that it seemed to be out of order because it was equivalent to omitting Clause 26, and that, even if it were not out of order, the proper place for it was Clause 26.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I have studied this matter very carefully and I wish to make this submission, that if we discuss this now it will avoid a general discussion which must inevitably be raised by my friends and myself on the question of the Clause standing part; and, further, it would be unnecessary to raise it again on Clause 26. We wish to deal with the whole of this important question once for all. I think it would save the time of the Committee to consider it now.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I ask the hon. Member to accept my word that I certainly desire to put no obstacle in the way of a full discussion of the question of a change in the valuation of London, and if the hon. Member will accept my suggestion—I will not say my advice—I think he will have a much better chance of raising the subject on Clause 26.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his advice, which I am sure is very wise, but I would like to explain that my sincere purpose in raising the matter now was to save time and to avoid two discussions.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I beg to move, in page 18, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided always that any re-assessment of agricultural land made by virtue of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, shall not be taken into consideration when a revaluation of agricultural land for assessment under Schedules A and B is made in 1931–32, or in any quinquennial revaluation.
The first Sub-section of this Clause provides for a revaluation of property in respect of which Income Tax is chargeable under Schedules A and B, and my Amendment is to secure that any reassessment of agricultural land under the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925 shall not be taken into consideration when a re-valuation is made under Schedules A and B or in any quinquennial revaluation. The purpose of this Amendment is merely to safeguard the owner-occupier of agricultural land from being injuriously affected by anything that took place under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and the assessments made under that Act. I would like to remind the Committee that an owner-occupier of land is doubly affected by an increase of his assessment under this Clause. In the first place, he is affected as an owner by an increase of Income Tax under Schedule A if his assessment is increased; and, in the second place, he is also affected by an increase in the Income Tax under Schedule B. Therefore if his assessment is increased, the owner-occupier of land is doubly affected by any increase of his assessment, and to this extent it is very important that his assessment should be fair and just. The Committee will naturally wonder how a man can possibly be aggrieved by an assessment made under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and how that can prejudice his case. In this connection, I would like to point out that Sub-section (2) of Section 43 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, provides that:
Any rating authority, on application by a surveyor of taxes, shall furnish to him a copy of their valuation list as for the time being in force, or of any rate for the time being in force or any extract from the rate or list, on payment of a sum not exceeding the rate of five shillings for every hundred entries.
That implies that the Inland Revenue authorities have the statutory right to come to the local authorities and ask for
that information, and, under those circumstances, the Inland Revenue authorities already have power to find out what is the assessment for rating purposes, and, naturally, they would adjust their assessment with that knowledge in front of them. The Committee will recollect that many safeguards were provided under the Act of 1925 to prevent the ratepayer from being unduly assessed, and in view of that, probably Members of the Committee will wonder how it is possible that a taxpayer can be aggrieved if the Inland Revenue authorities take for taxation purposes the assessment made by the local authorities under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. Under that Act the local rating authority issues a list of the assessments, and it is quite an easy process for any person who feels himself aggrieved to appeal to the local assessment committee which consists of people who know the applicant. If the aggrieved person loses that appeal, then he has a right of appeal to quarter sessions, and in these circumstances it seems to me to be inconceivable that any assessment made under such conditions will be unjust or unfair.
I would like the Committee to follow me in my reason for asking for this Amendment. At the time when these assessments were made by the local authorities, the local authorities had a number of interests in raising generally the assessments for rating in their areas. In the first place, many of the assessments were very old, and it was only right that they should be brought up to date; while, secondly, an increased assessment would mean, in normal cases, a decrease in the poundage of the rates. These increases of assessments were kept in check generally by the right which the ratepayer had to appeal. If the assessment committee or the rating authority put up the assessment to too high a figure, they would know that the ratepayer would appeal, and probably the assessment would be reduced. Therefore, the assessments made were generally a compromise between what the assessment committee would desire and what the ratepayer thought was just.
I come to the question of agricultural land. As I have said, the assessment in the ordinary way was a compromise, because the assessment committee knew
that an aggrieved ratepayer would appeal; but, in the case of agricultural land, it was known, at the time when these assessments were made, that the land was going to be de-rated, and, that being so, there was no purpose in an occupier of land appealing against his increased assessment. It has come to my knowledge that in many cases local authorities have raised their assessments of agricultural land, because, by so doing, when the land was de-rated, they obtained a larger grant from the national Exchequer in respect of loss of rates; and, further, they knew that there was going to be no appeal by the occupier of the land, because he was not going to pay any more rates. In these circumstances, I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it may be possible, when the assessments on the land in agricultural areas are too high, that, if that information is given to the Inland Revenue authorities, the rates for Income Tax under Schedules A and B will be unjustly high, and, therefore, the owner-occupier will be hit. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give this justice to the owner-occupier of agricultural land.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The concluding remarks of the hon. Member, in which he let the cat out of the bag, were, I think, the most conclusive argument that could be advanced in support of the rejection of this Amendment. The hon. Member's point was that, since the De-rating Act, which relieves agricultural land from any contribution to local rates, the local authorities, in order to get more money from the national Exchequer, have put up their assessments beyond reasonable figures. What the hon. Member now asks me to do is to give a further advantage to the agricultural interest because they have alrealy taken advantage of the leniency of the national Exchequer. I hardly think that that is an argument which will commend the Amendment to the Committee.
To come to the more serious part of the hon. Member's argument, it is not proposed in this Clause to take the assessment for local rates as a basis of assessment for Schedule A. The broad principle is that the assessment of agricultural land should follow the same line as the assessment of other properties. Where agricultural
land is let, the rack rent is to be taken as the annual value, and where it is not let the annual value is to be the amount at which it would let at a rack rent. That course will be followed in the proposed revaluation. Even supposing we accepted the words of this Amendment, the assessment would still be fixed by the local commissioners of taxes, who could not be debarred from knowing what the value of the property for local purposes was. No words in the Act of Parliament could prevent them from taking that matter into consideration. It is not proposed that they should be bound by the valuation for local purposes, but that they should take that matter into consideration along with all other relevant matters. I am sure the sense of justice of the Committee will be on the side of treating the income from agricultural land just as the income from all other forms of property is treated and, if the income is derived from the letting of agricultural land, surely there is no case at all why that should not pay Income Tax at the same rate as Income Tax is paid upon other forms of property. I really cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I very much regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to accept the Amendment. I perfectly understand these reasons he has advanced, but we come up in this case against the difference between theory and practice. In theory, of course, the assessment of the Revaluation Act, 1925, should have been on a perfectly fair rack rent basis, and the assessment for Income Tax, Schedule A, should also be on a perfectly fair rack rent basis, but in practice, as those of us who have to deal with those assessments know only too well, that is not always the case. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to deal with landlords or landowners in a generous spirit—we all know his prejudices in that direction—but I do not think even he is anxious to deal with this in a particularly unfair spirit, and what we are asking is that those who have to assess Schedule A shall be asked to assess it on a basis unbiassed by any unfairness there may have been in the rating assessment of 1925. Of course, they must know what that assessment has been. We quite understand that. If it is unfair
against the owner and occupier of land, any unfairness of that sort in paying Schedule A reacts against both the tenant and the wage earner on agricultural land. We ask that any unfairness shall be disregarded and that words to that effect shall be put into the Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see if he cannot meet us in some way so that those who do these reassessments shall not be biassed by any existing unfairness in the 1925 rating assessments.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I feel that I have gained my point in moving the Amendment. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that these two things will not be considered unjustly, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to move, in page 18, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that in no case shall an increase of assessment of any house property made by any new valuation hereunder take effect in any one year by more than five per cent. in excess of the previous assessment.
I can claim, without any very great pride, paternity for the phrasing of this Amendment. I have said "without any great pride" because the matter is one of very great difficulty. I turned over in my mind and on paper a, number of ways in which to put this very important point. I came to the conclusion that this Amendment, although in no way perfectly phrased, expresses a very real grievance which will arise under the new valuation. I do not wish to bind the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the phrasing of the Amendment, but I ask him to accept the principle of it, and to give effect to it by an Amendment of his own. The question of rating and Income Tax assessment is a very difficult matter. There are differences between London and the provinces. I would like, in the very simplest terms, to express the position to the Committee. There are in this country two main forms of taxation—local taxation and national taxation. One, of course, is rated and the other comes under Income Tax. In the rated, I think I should be right in saying that reassessment has been left, very largely, to the whim, caprice and will of the local authority, and in many cases, except in
London, there has not been a re-assessment for many years. In theory there was an Income Tax re-assessment every five years, except during the War, and since 1923 the Finance Act from year to year has continued the old assessment.
Therefore, it might be thought that in the provinces there was a fairly permanent re-assessment of property bringing it up to date from time to time. This has not really been the case, because the country officials responsible for the administration of rates and taxes formed the conclusion that property, after all, had one value for all purposes, that it was worth the same thing for taxes and for rates. Income Tax officials in many parts of the country very properly took the rating assessment as the assessment by which they were bound. Nothing can be more calculated to raise grievances in the taxpayer's mind than to find the same house valued in different ways for different purposes. Naturally, it would be a grievance to a simple-minded person, and most people are simple-minded. The Income Tax official in many parts of the country was bound by the rating assessment, and in many parts of the country there has been no re-assessment either for rates or for Schedule A for many years. We do not depart in the least from the principle advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. We maintain that there should be a single valuation both for Income Tax and for rates, but, of course, if you suddenly make a change from an antiquated system to a new system, you may create very great injustice indeed. As a Conservative, I believe in the inevitability of gradualness.
The only purpose of this Amendment is to act as a buffer or brake to see that no drastic injustice is done to certain people. I could give many instances in which grave injustice might be done in individual cases under this new revaluation. There has been no great revaluation of property in many parts of Great Britain for many years, and in 40 years values have enormously changed. Rates will go up and, indeed, have gone up as a result of the re-assessment of last year. Income Tax will go up too; but there is this fundamental difference between local and national taxation. In local taxation you have generally an agreed amount to
be raised by an area, and the purpose of the local taxers is to see that this amount of money is raised fairly throughout the area. The assessments may be raised, but the poundage will go down, and no great change takes place. Take my own constituency of Eastbourne, where the value of property has gone up enormously. They were re-assessed last year and their assessments went up, but as they have a limited amount of expenditure to meet their poundage went down and no great change takes place.
The opposite will be the case if Income Tax assessment is increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, rightly, raises as much money as be can. There is no limit, and if the assessment goes up the amount goes up too; and it will bring about injustice. Hon. Members opposite can quite easily place themselves in the position of a retired man with limited means. He seeks to go to some place where he can spend the evening of his days. If he is wise he will choose my constituency. One of the elements in his choice, where conditions are pleasant and where living is economic, would be, of course, the lowness of the rates and the lowness of Income Tax assessment. Suppose the Income Tax assessment was unjustifiably low, he would naturally think that he had made a great bargain in buying his house and he would order his life on that basis. He would say, "I have bought this house, which is my own, and I can live in it for the rest of my days." He can plan out his expenditure, but he does not take into consideration the fact that the assessment of his house will go up enormously. My hon. Friend who sits on these benches will be able to produce instances where the assessment will inevitably go up enormously, perhaps 100 per cent. or 150 per cent. Such a man will have to pay enormously more now than he did before. That cannot be right. Under the old system, perhaps unjust and antiquated, he thought he had the right to consider his way of life permanent, and it is quite outside his calculations that this change should take place. Of course, private rights must give way to public policy.
I think it is absolutely correct in principle and unchallengable that there should be a fair assessment of property from time to time, in order that there should be no injustice, but I say that
when you are going to upset individual people, and, perhaps, change the whole tenour of their lives, you must do it gradually. That is the whole purpose of the Amendment. It is not a difference in principle from what is proposed by the Chancellor. I would accept far less than I am asking for, but I do ask the Chancellor to consider this, for it is a very, very serious matter. It is not a party question. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they go down to their constituencies at the next election, will have to face this question. They have supporters who are Income Tax payers. Many of them are Income and Super-tax payers themselves, and they will have to face this matter in their constituencies. It will be well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to be prepared for the argument which will be put to them, and the only answer they can give will be that it was necessary to bring about the change and say, "We saw to it that the change was gradual, and did our best to see nobody had drastically to change the manner of their lives as the result of this action."

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: There is a better answer to any person who may be aggrieved by an increase in the assessment for Schedule A purposes than that which the hon. Member gave in his concluding remarks, and it is this: The hon. Member in this Amendment asks that the new assessments, if there be an increase in any particular instances, shall not be based upon the actual income from the property, but that if there be any increase, it shall be limited to 5 per cent. It is true, he did not commit himself definitely to that figure of 5 per cent., but, at any rate, his point is that there shall not be an increase proportionate to any increase in the rent which may have taken place since the last valuation. He said that in his constituency there might be cases where the increase in assessment would be 100 per cent., or even 150 per cent. I do not think the hon. Member really apprehended what a statement like that involves. It is now 10 years since the last assessment took place, and during each of those 10 years there has been an increase in the value of the income from these properties.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: With great respect, I was referring really to the owner-occupier. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has raised this question,
because I would have liked to limit my Amendment to the owner-occupier. The valuation is raised but his income does not go up, and if he has to pay it, he has to provide for further taxation without any further resources to meet it.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member is surely wrong there. If the value of the property goes up, and he is the owner-occupier of the property, that is really an increase in his income.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: No. If he wanted to sell and move elsewhere, that would be so, but supposing he wants to remain in his home?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The annual value of the property is really part of his income, and, if he cared to let the property, that would be increased by the 100 per cent. or the 150 per cent. which the hon. Member mentioned. That is the answer which my hon. Friends would give in case they were ever called upon to justify their position in this matter. The hon. Member indicated the line which he is going to take when the question of the re-assessment of property in London is under consideration. He says that he wants local rating to be made the basis of that assessment, but the hon. Member again exposed the weakness of his case by saying that in the case of local rating it does not matter very much what the assessment is, because the local authority has to raise a certain amount from the rates and therefore, if the assessable value be low, the poundage rate is so much higher. He went on to say that that is not the case with the Income Tax, but is it not? He says that if we raise the assessment we get a larger return wad that is quite true, but just as the amount of money needed by the local authority is a fixed sum, so the amount which the Exchequer wants from Income Tax is also s, fixed sum. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, it is, the sum fixed for the year, exactly as the sum fixed for the local rates is a sum fixed for the year, and therefore if the assessments under Schedule A were increased, the yield would be greater and, then, just as in the case of the revenue of the local authority, unless the needs of the national Exchequer were increased there would be provision in that increased yield from Schedule A for a reduction in the general rate.
Apart from the fact that the hon. Member's suggestion would enable a person whose property had increased in rateable value to escape his fair contribution to the Income Tax, let us take a concrete case and see how it would work out—not an exaggerated case or rather an extreme case such as he suggested of an increase of 100 per cent. or 150 per cent. It seemed to be generally accepted by the Committee when I spoke on the last Amendment that the assessments under Schedule A are to be based on the income from the property subject, of course, to the deductions to which I have referred. Is not that a fair way of doing it? But if the hon. Member's suggestion were accepted, the result would be a very grave injustice between taxpayer and taxpayer, because the reductions which these people were getting below the real income from their property would have to be made up by other Income Tax payers. Supposing that property previously assessed at £100 can be justly re-assessed at £120, that is the income upon which Income Tax has to be paid. What would the hon. Member's Amendment do? It would say, "This man is getting £120 a year either in rent, or in value if he be the owner occupier, but we will not increase his assessment up to the amount of the income which he is actually getting; we will only raise it by £5."
11.0. p.m.
It must be remembered that there are a large number of these assessments. I believe that about 10,000,000 valuations have to be taken. Some of them, of course, will fall on the revaluation and some will increase, but there would be an enormous loss to the Revenue in cases where there had undoubtedly been an increase in the annual value of the property since the last valuation if the hon. Member's Amendment were carried. In the case which I have just quoted where it had risen from £100 to £120, the hon. Member would say, "No, we will not put the figure of the income, we will only put it at £105." Therefore, that man is escaping Income Tax upon £15 of income which he has received. I think it cannot be said that that is either a just or in any way an equitable proposal.

Mr. ATKINSON: I would like to give an illustration which I think that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer will
admit is a case of gross injustice. I accept the principle that he has laid down that a man ought to be taxed in accordance with his income, but there are two classes of owner who will be adversely affected by this change. There is the owner-occupier, who has been mentioned, and there is the owner of a building who granted 21-year leases, say, 12 years ago. I had a case within the last fortnight—and I can verify the truth of what I am saying—of a building in the City of London, with various floors let off as offices, the sole source of income of a lady, a widow. The leases were granted in 1916 for 21 years at various rents. The uncontradicted evidence given is that the rental values are at least double to-day what they were at that time. For example, one floor which was let by her at £145 a year has been sublet for £300 a year. When you come to assess this building—and of course the Committee appreciates that this increase of rental value does not increase the owner's income by a penny, and that for another seven or eight years her income remains constant, however valuable these rents may become—what will happen to her? Under the first of the general rules, the method of valuing such buildings for Income Tax purposes is that the annual value is to be understood to be the amount of the rent by the year at which they are let, if they are let at a rack rent, and if the amount of that rent has been fixed by agreement within seven years, but if they are not let at a full annual value, then the full annual value which they are worth is to be taken.
When they come to revalue the building, the assessable value on that basis will be double, and therefore the Income Tax which this lady will have to pay will also be double. If that rule is applied when you come to revalue that building for Income Tax purposes, as the rents are not, the full annual rents fixed within seven years, the second part of the rule will have to be applied, with the result stated, that, the annual value having been doubled, the assessment will be doubled for rating and Income Tax purposes, and there is somebody whose income cannot be increased by a penny, but whose Income Tax will be doubled right away and whose rates will be doubled right away. I hope some answer will be given to this illustration, but I do not see what reply
there can be. Where it is the case of an owner-occupier, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the fact that your house has doubled in value, although it does not increase your income at all, it is not unfair that you should pay more Income Tax on your more valuable house. It is hard on the person who happens to live there, but there may be an argument there. But in the case of the person whose income cannot be increased and who does not enjoy the advantage of living in the more valuable place, but whose income is limited by rents fixed by leases more than seven years old, there is no argument that I can see. [Interruption.] Increased taxation will be got from people whose income has not increased, and cannot increase, by one penny. It is to protect that class of people that I have added my name to the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made the point that these people have been led into a sense of false security because year has followed year without their assessments being raised. Landlords have got into the way of granting leases of 21 years.

Mr. MacLAREN: Does the hon. and learned Member suggest that the property was let without the owner knowing to the last penny the annual value of that property? Did the person not know, or was he not advised, of the current possible rental of the property?

Mr. ATKINSON: The owner got what were fair rentals at that time in 1916, but property has gone up in value and rent has increased, as we all know, to our cost. In this particular building it has been proved by expert evidence that if these rules were made to-day the full annual value would be at least twice as much, and when the assessors come to revalue that property, if they carry out the rule in its rigid sense, the Income Tax and rates of that person will be doubled, without any possibility of the income increasing by one penny. One point that, I was making when the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) asked me a question, was that because of the method on which the valuations in London have been conducted in the past, by accepting a fixed valuation which has continued year after year, landlords have got into the way of granting these long leases of 21 years, whereas if they had known that there was going
to be revaluations on this basis, they would have been very chary at granting these long leases. They would have protected themselves by granting only short leases. The long leases are in favour of the lessees, because they are given the option of breaking at various terms the the position of the lessors who have given the leases of 21 years—the Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head. I should be very relieved if there is a satisfactory answer, but I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have the wording of the rule in front of him when he gives his answer, because it seems to be quite explicit as to what is to be done. The amount of the rent is to be taken only if the premises are let at the full annual value by agreement made within the last seven years. If they are not let at the full annual value by agreement within the last seven years, the amount to be taken is the full annual value. Am I right there?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I quoted that.

Mr. ATKINSON: If that is the rule when you come to deal with a building leased within the last seven years—in the case in question, the lease is 14 years old, and the rental values have doubled—if the rule is to be rigidly applied the lessors are going to be unjustly hit. My hon. Friend forgets that by the terms of this lease the lessor agrees to pay all rates. It is the common practice, where you let flats or shops, for the rents to be fixed, but the landlord pays the rates. That is one class of case. The owner-occupier is another case, and, where his income is not going to be raised at all, he may be called upon to pay a very much larger sum. Therefore, we suggest that some method of graduation to meet the increased burden should be made.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I think the hon. and learned Member is under a misapprehension. Let us take an imaginary case where the assessment may be increased during the existence of a lease by 100 per cent. Supposing this property is let at £1,000 a year and that when the revaluation comes along it is decided that it is worth £2,000 a, year and that is the sum fixed for Income Tax purposes under Schedule A. The lessor would not be affected at all during the tenancy of the lease by any increase in the assessment. There are, of course, other answers to
the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in the earlier part of his remarks. Under the present system of assessment in London, on the basis of rates, the valuation is much too low for Income Tax purposes. I do not want to enter into the case of valuation in London, but it is very well known that there is something like half-a-million a year lost by under assessment of property for Income Tax purposes and that money is now going into the pockets of property owners and has to be made up by other classes of Income Tax payers. The lessor of the property to which the hon. Member referred will not be charged during the continuance of the lease the full annual value of that property. But what has she got? During the continuance of that lease the property is increasing in value, and at the termination of the lease it will be found that the property is worth not £1,000, but £2,000 a year. Therefore, during that lease of 21 years, the value of her property has doubled, and as she would only have been paying Income Tax on the £1,000 which she has received, she has escaped the Income Tax all these years on the increase.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I am in agreement in regard to this question of the tenant who pays a rental and who deducts Schedule A tax from the landlord, but there is a class of tenant which the Chancellor has forgotten, although I am not here to defend him. I refer to that class of tenant who pays inclusive rentals. My hon. and learned Friend had that class in view. In the City of London there are a very large number of properties which are let out in different offices on different floors at inclusive rentals for long periods. In these cases it is perfectly clear that the landlord under this Clause would have to pay considerably higher Schedule A assessments, but would be unable to pass it on to the tenant, because in these particular cases there is an entirely inclusive rental. I only mention that because I know that it exists, and I want to bring it to the Chancellor's notice. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said regarding the ordinary case, but there are those cases, of which I know plenty, in which the tenant only has the right to terminate the lease, and
the landlord is bound for a period of 21 years on inclusive rentals—which very often include things other than rent—and in those cases the landlord would be unable to pass the extra charge on to the tenant.
I want to turn to another point which is of great importance in connection with this Amendment. In the case of London I do not think that there is so much grievance, because after all the quinquennial valuation has been in force for a very long time, but in the country the position is totally different. It was rather difficult to hear the Chancellor, but if I heard him correctly, he referred to the fact that these were cases in which there has not been regular valuations. I can tell him of cases in different parts of the country where there has been no revaluation for 50 years, and the Committee will rightly understand, therefore, that I am not against the principle of this Clause. It is desirable that we should gradually bring about a settled system throughout the country, but the difficulty is that the valuations are carried out in different parts of the country not by any one authority, but by different authorities. In many parts of the country, the expert valuers have been done away with and in the last year, revaluation has taken place in some cases by people who, to put it frankly were not over-qualified for the purpose. The consequence is that in one county or one district there may be one town in which the valuation has gone up by 25 and 30 per cent. In another case, and near by, they have gone up by only 5 per cent. It is clear that it is going to be grossly unfair on those people whose valuations have been put up to a high figure if they are suddenly called upon to pay these increased assessments without having an opportunity of levelling down their assessments as regards others in the neighbouring places.
This Amendment may not be possible in the form in which it is printed, but I hope that between now and the Report stage the Chancellor will consider whether it is not necessary to make some sliding scale, so that where there has been a largely increased valuation it will not press too hardly at once upon the Income Tax payers. The Financial Secretary may remember that some months ago I
drew his attention to the allegation that in various parts of the country ordinary assessments under the Rating and Valuation Act were being made use of by the Income Tax Commissioners under Schedule A. He gave me a rather surprising answer. He said that surely was what was intended. He must now be aware that, as a matter of fact, this was not intended at all, and that it was quite improper for the commissioners to make use of the new assessments.
This does wit mean that I am not in favour of a quinquennial valuation, but I would point out what is the position in the country as against London. In London we have had the system carried out more or less by experts over many years, and therefore there is no likelihood of there being unfairness between one taxpayer and another. In the country there are certain areas where the valuation has been carried out by fairly expert people and assessments have gone up reasonably, shall we say, whereas in other places, quite near by, the valuations have gone up out of all knowledge simply, I am sorry to say, because in some cases the people who made the valuations had not expert knowledge.
The moment they apply Schedule A taxation to these assessments there will be a grossly unfair incidence of taxation as between one set of taxpayers and another. This is not a question affecting one class of taxpayers with incomes beyond a certain amount. It will affect all kinds of taxpayers, some of them the very smallest people, because it will apply to very small houses more than anything else, and in a great many cases the landlord has the right to pass on the whole or a large proportion of this taxation in the rent. I do not ask the Chancellor to give me an answer now, but I do ask him to consider whether it is not possible to graduate the thing in some way, so that in cases where there has been an undue inflation—I use my own words, and I do not accuse him of being intentionally unfair—as a result of the Rating and Valuation Act, there shall not be an immense immediate increase of payments but a graduation over a series of years.

Major ELLIOT: I wish to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
there are one or two points which have not been covered by his reply. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was that if some people pay less others will have to pay more. Our contention is that the variations which have existed throughout the country are now to be flattened out, and quite reasonably, by this valuation. The lowly-rated and the lowly taxed areas are having their burdens increased by the more highly-taxed areas. In local government practice a proposal of that kind is by no means unknown or unusual, but very often it is arranged step by step so that the increased local taxation is not raised by a single bound to the level of the taxation of the neighbouring area, but is raised by a series of steps and by a gradual process. The result may be that certain areas have got off with the lower rate but it is felt that if there is a sudden change an alteration of levels is undesirable. In one particular case the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the owner-occupier, if he wished, could recover this increased value by selling or by letting his property. But, supposing he does not wish to sell or let his property, that owner-occupier will find his taxation increasing without any corresponding increase from which to pay the taxation. [Interruption.] The owner-occupier of a house would have great difficulty in realising under those circumstances. A man with an unrealisable asset will suddenly find that his assessment has been increased and his taxation will correspondingly be increased, and therefore he has a grievance. In those circumstances it is only reasonable to suggest to the rest of the community that any increase should come gradually instead of suddenly. [Interruption.]

Major COLFOX: On a point of order. I should like to ask if I should be in order in suggesting that hon. Members opposite would be able to hold their conversation with more comfort if they went to some other place.

Major ELLIOT: My first point is the setting up of differential rating and the sending up of taxation from a low level to a high level. In the second place, an owner-occupier cannot realise an asset on which he is to be taxed correspondingly, and he finds himself subjected to a sudden rise in his taxation. My third point is
the one which was made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks), that local taxation does not matter because an increased assessment is reflected in the lower poundage. The amount of money required is fixed, and consequently, if more money is involved, a lower levy is made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the same thing was true of the Income Tax, but that is not the case, because local taxation is collected on the basis of the rates, while Imperial taxation is collected on the basis of a number of different taxes. If the Income Tax should be found to yield more, I think it would be very hard for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advance the argument that he would therefore lower the Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman would use the money in relief of some other form of taxation. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's argument falls to the ground. An increase in the amount collected from the Income Tax will not mean a lower tax or a penny off the Income Tax in future years, but it will mean that he will knock off some other taxation in some other field. The increased amount will not inure to any of those upon whom this extra amount is being levied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a figure of £500,000 a year for the City of London——

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Not the City of London.

Major ELLIOT: I beg pardon; for the area of London alone.

The CHAIRMAN: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to address his remarks to me, and not to hon. Members below the Gangway?

Major ELLIOT: I beg pardon, Mr. Young. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was assuming this very large amount for London alone, and of course for the whole country it would be considerably more. It will not go back to the Income Tax payers, but will be given to other classes of taxpayers. Income Tax payers will thus suffer a double injustice. We say that it is only reasonable that it should be gradual, and we have provided for certain proportions. If the Chancellor accepts the principle, we should be prepared to provide different proportions, but, in view of the fact that the quinquennial valuation
is now being brought in, we ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept this proposal. If he cannot make any concession on that point, we shall be reluctantly compelled to divide the Committee.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that in London we were short to the extent of £500,000 owing to the present valuation under Schedule A in London, as far as Income Tax was concerned. I think that that is an insult to the assessment committees in London, accusing them of under-assessing the property in their areas. With regard to the principle which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid down as to the valuation for rates and for taxes, he pointed out just now that the valuation for the purpose of rates was a low valuation because only a certain amount of money had to be raised for local purposes, and he really inferred that the local assessment committees were not giving the proper value to property in their areas, but were giving it a lower value because of the amount of money that they had to raise in their local areas. Surely, however, a property is either worth a certain amount or it is not, and, if it is worth a certain amount, the taxes can be raised on that amount, and the rates also. The property can only have one value, and on that the local taxation and also the national taxation is raised. That is what happens in London, but not in other parts of the country. I think that the principle which has been laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is absolutely wrong.

Mr. ATKINSON: I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the answer that he gave me just now, comparing Rule 1 of Schedule A and No. 7 of Schedule A, because Rule 8 provides, as I thought, that the assessment shall be made upon the landlord in respect of any building which is let in different apartments or tenements. Where the owner is assessed in that way, the only way of making a valuation is by No. 1 of Schedule A, and, therefore, I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman's answer does not meet the point.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 262.

Division No. 381.]
AYES.
[9.14 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marshall, Fred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mathers, George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Matters, L. W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Groves, Thomas E.
Messer, Fred


Alpass, J. H.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Middleton, G.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Millar, J. D.


Arnott, John
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mills, J. E.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Milner, Major J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Montague, Frederick


Ayles, Walter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harbord, A.
Morley, Ralph


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hardie, George D.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Barnes, Alfred John
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Barr, James
Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Mort, D. L.


Bellamy, Albert
Hayes, John Henry
Moses, J. J. H.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Benson, G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Muff, G.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Herriotts, J.
Murnin, Hugh


Birkett, W. Norman
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bowen, J. W.
Hoffman, P. C.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hollins, A.
Oldfield, J. R.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hopkin, Daniel
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Bromfield, William
Horrabin, J. F.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Brooke, W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Brothers, M.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Palin, John Henry


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Isaacs, Georga
Paling, Wilfrid


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Palmer, E. T.


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Burgess, F. G.
Johnston, Thomas
Perry, S. F.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Price, M. P.


Cape, Thomas
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pybus, Percy John


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Charleton, H. C.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Chater, Daniel
Kelly, W. T.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Church, Major A. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Richards, R.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kinley, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cove, William G.
Knight, Holford
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cowan, D. M.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Ritson, J.


Daggar, George
Lang, Gordon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Dallas, George
Lathan, G.
Romeril, H. G.


Dalton, Hugh
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Day, Harry
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Rowson, Guy


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrence, Susan
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dickson, T.
Lawson, John James
Sanders, W. S.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Sandham, E.


Dukes, C.
Leach, W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Scrymgeour, E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Scurr, John


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lees, J.
Sexton, James


Egan, W. H.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Elmley, Viscount
Logan, David Gilbert
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Foot, Isaac
Longbottom, A. W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Longden, F.
Shield, George William


Freeman, Peter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shields, Dr. Drummond


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lowth, Thomas
Shillaker, J. F.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Simmons, C. J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sinkinson, George


Gibbins, Joseph
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sitch, Charles H.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
McElwee, A.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gill, T. H.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keightey)


Glassey, A. E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gossling, A. G.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gould, F.
McShane, John James
Snell, Harry


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mansfield, W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Granville, E.
Markham, S. F.
Sorensen, R.


Gray, Milner
Marley, J.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Stephen, Campbell
Walkden, A. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Walker, J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Sullivan, J.
Wallace, H. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Sutton, J. E.
Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Watkins, F. C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Thurtle, Ernest
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Tillett, Ben
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Tinker, John Joseph
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Toole, Joseph
Wellock, Wilfred
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Tout, W. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Townend, A. E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)



Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
West, F. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Vaughan, D. J.
Westwood, Joseph
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.


Viant, S. P.
White, H. G.
Smith.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Everard, W. Lindsay
O'Neill, Sir H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Penny, Sir George


Atkinson, C.
Fermoy, Lord
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fielden, E. B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balniel, Lord
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Ramsbotham, H.


Beaumont M. W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Berry, Sir George
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Remer, John R.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gower, Sir Robert
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Salmon, Major I.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Savery, S. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Skelton, A. N.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smithers, Waldron


Chapman, Sir S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Christie, J. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Colfox, Major William Philip
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Tinne, J. A.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.-
Train, J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cranborne, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Wells, Sydney R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dawson, Sir Philip
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Womersley, W. J.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Meller, R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)



Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Muirhead, A. J.
Sit Frederick Thomson and Major


England, Colonel A.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
The Marquess of Titchfield.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 382.]
AYES.
[11.36 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
O'Neill, Sir H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Atholl, Duchess of
Ferguson, Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atkinson, C.
Fielden, E. B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Ramsbotham, H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bainiel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Remer, John R.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Boothby, R. J. G.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gower, Sir Robert
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bracken, B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Salmon, Major I.


Briscoe, Richard George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Savery, S. S.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hartington, Marquess of
Skelton, A. N.


Carver, Major W. H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Christie, J. A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Colville, Major D. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Sir F.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Train, J.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Long, Major Eric
Wardlaw-Milne. J. S.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wells, Sydney R.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dawson, Sir Philip
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Womersley, W. J.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Muirhead, A. J.



Duckworth, G. A. V.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sir George Penny and Captain


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Sir George Bowyer.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buchanan, G.
Forgan, Dr. Robert


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Burgess, F. G.
Freeman, Peter


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Cameron, A. G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Alpass, J. H.
Cape, Thomas
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Ammon, Charles George
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gibbins, Joseph


Arnott, John
Charleton, H. C.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)


Aske, Sir Robert
Chater, Daniel
Gill, T. H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Church, Major A. G.
Gillett, George M.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Clarke, J. S.
Glassey, A. E.


Barnes, Alfred John
Cluse, W. S.
Gossling, A. G.


Barr, James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gould, F.


Batey, Joseph
Colfox, Major William Philip
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Beaumont, M. W.
Compton, Joseph
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Bellamy, Albert
Daggar, George
Granville, E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Dallas, George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Dalton, Hugh
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro' W.)


Benson, G.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Day, Harry
Groves, Thomas E.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Birkett, W. Norman
Dickson, T.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Bowen, J. W.
Dukes, C.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Ede, James Chuter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Edmunds, J. E.
Harbord, A.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hardie, George D.


Bromfield, William
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Harris, Percy A.


Brooke, W.
Egan, W. H.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Brothers, M.
Elmley, Viscount
Haycock, A. W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
England, Colonel A.
Hayday, Arthur


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Foot, Isaac
Hayes, John Henry




Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Marley, J.
Scurr, John


Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Marshall, Fred
Sexton, James


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mathers, George
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Harriotts, J.
Matters, L. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Messer, Fred
Sherwood, G. H.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Middleton, G.
Shield, George William


Hoffman, P. C.
Mills, J. E.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Hollins, A.
Milner, Major J.
Shillaker, J. F.


Hopkin, Daniel
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Simmons, C. J.


Horrabin, J. F.
Morley, Ralph
Sinkinson, George


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Sitch, Charles H.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Johnston, Thomas
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Mort, D. L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Moses, J. J. H.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Muff, G.
Sorensen, R.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Kelly, W. T.
Naylor, T. E.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Kennedy, Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Strauss, G. R.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Sullivan, J.


Kinley, J.
Oldfield, J. R.
Sutton, J. E.


Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lang, Gordon
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Thurtle, Ernest


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Tinker, John Joseph


Lathan, G.
Palin, John Henry
Toole, Joseph


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Paling, Wilfrid
Tout, W. J.


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Palmer, E. T.
Townend, A. E.


Lawrence, Susan
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Viant, S. P.


Lawson, John James
Perry, S. F.
Walker, J.


Lawther W. (Barnard Cattle)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wallace, H. W.


Leach, W.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Potts, John S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Price, M. P.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lees, J.
Pybus, Percy John
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lindley, Fred W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
West, F. R.


Logan, David Gilbert
Rathbone, Eleanor
Westwood, Joseph


Longbottom, A. W.
Raynes, W. R.
White, H. G.


Longden, F.
Richards, R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lunn, William
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Ritson, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Romerll, H. G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


McElwee, A.
Rothschild, J. de
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


McEntee, V. L.
Rowson, Guy
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacLaren, Andrew
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)



McShane, John James
Sanders, W. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sandham, E.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. William


Mansfield, W.
Sawyer, G. F.
Whiteley.


Markham, S. F.
Scrymgeour, E.

Amendment made:
In page 18, line 16, leave out the word assessment", and insert instead thereof the word "revaluation."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I call is in the name of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) to leave out Sub-section (3).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to move, in page 18, line 1, to leave out Subsection (3). I am rather surprised that, you have called this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has no right to make any such reflection on the conduct of the Chair.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I had no intention of making any reflection on the Chair, but as this is consequential on a previous Amendment which the Committee has negatived I do not propose to put forward any arguments upon it.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member to say that this is a consequential Amendment to the one which has just been rejected. I had not noticed that or I should not have called it.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Limitation on amount of sur-tax payable in respect of total income of individual dying within year of assessment.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I should like to know why this Clause should have been put into this Bill, and if it is a concession to the taxpayer, in what way it is a concession. I take the Clause to mean that the amount of Surtax for the year in which a person dies shall be not more than the Income Tax would have been if the Income Tax rate had been kept at the level of the year before the death of the person, but in reading the Clause I am bound to say that I have a suspicion that there must be some mistake in its drafting. It says:
The amount of Sur-tax payable in respect of the total income of an individual"—
And then, a line or two further down, it says:
which would have been payable if Income Tax had been chargeable.
Why does it say in the first line "Surtax" and in line 4 "Income Tax"?
Is it a misprint? Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would also tell me this: This Clause seems to aim at protecting a man's executor against having to pay in the case of a rise in the rate after the estate has been wound up. That would be all right, but what happens if the rate ultimately is reduced after the tax has been paid? Does the executor get any money back then, or suppose the unsettled probate account drags on till after the tax has been reduced?

Sir B. PETO: Your decision, Mr. Dunnico, is the last thing that I should question in any possible way. You have decided to call no Amendments on this Clause, and the only reason I regret it is that I have reason to think that as printed the Clause is in error and that what the Government really intended to do by this Clause was to provide that the amount of Surtax payable in respect of the total income of an individual for the year of assessment in which he dies shall not exceed the amount of Surtax which would have been payable if the Surtax had been chargeable for that year at the same rate as for the year preceding. It seems to be very strange that in this Clause, which provides for a limitation on the amount of Surtax payable, the Government should say the Surtax payer shall not be asked for a greater amount than if the Income Tax chargeable in the preceding year had not been raised.
We are told that Income Tax in the future will cover a multitude of sins. It is to cover Surtax, or Super-tax, or any form of direct tax which has been or is going to be imposed, but in this case you have a Clause which appears to be an exception to the general principle laid down by the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), when he said just now that he very much doubted whether throughout this Bill there was a single Clause that was really designed for the benefit of the taxpayer. This Clause certainly ostensibly appears to be so designed. It says that in the event of the taxpayer dying, his estate shall not be charged at a higher rate of Surtax than the tax of which he was cognisant when he still walked this earth. I have come to the conclusion that there is one thing the Chancellor of the Exchequer
is afraid of, and that is raising ghosts. He does not want, when he increases the Surtax for any year, to increase the Surtax in respect of the property of somebody who is already defunct, because that might raise obvious difficulties on those rare occasions when he is able to stay in bed. It is very curious that if the Chancellor raises the Surtax after the taxpayer is dead, his elate apparently is to be responsible for Surtax at the increased rate, but the Clause says that if he raises the Income Tax after the taxpayer is dead, his executor is to pay Surtax only at the rate which was in force before he died.
There is a further difficulty. It appears to me that this Clause 21 would not arise except for the provisions of Clause 7, which deals with the rate at which Surtax in future shall be payable. There is special exception made in Clause 21 that if the Surtax payer dies the provisions of Clause 7 shall not operate. Why, in order to simplify the Finance Bill, did the right hon. Gentleman not put the subject matter of Clause 21 in as a proviso to Clause 7, so that people would know where to look for it? Surely if a man was able through his executors to thank the Government for this little bit of relief to his estate, it would be a convenience to be able to know where to look for this relief. They would look for it in Clause 7, but they have to look through 14 other Clauses, which have nothing whatever to do with the subject, in order to find the little bit of sugar. I suggest that it is in the wrong place, that it ought not to be a separate Clause, that it ought to be a proviso of Clause 7, that it is wrongly drafted and that it ought to say that the Surtax payable on the income of a single individual for the year of assessment in which he dies shall not exceed the amount of the Surtax that would have been payable if the Surtax had been chargeable for that year at the same rate as the proceeding year. Surtax must relate to Surtax. It is idle to tell me that Income Tax covers Surtax. The fashion to increase direct taxation is through Surtax. While we have the present Government in power we shall have a succession of Finance Bills, like the present Finance Bill, tending to limit more and more to the selected few the privilege of paying practically the whole of the taxation of the country.
It is through the agency of the Surtax that we shall find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is in office next year, which may the Lord forbid, will raise the surplus revenue that he requires.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We can not discuss the merits or demerits of Surtax on this Clause. This Clause provides the machinery by which the Surtax payable shall be determined in specific cases.

Sir B. PETO: I bow to your Ruling. I am only pointing out that it is probably through Surtax and not through Income Tax that increased taxation will be raised, and therefore it is very important that if a concession of this kind in respect of a deceased taxpayer is to be made, it should be made upon the right basis, and that his estate should not be called upon to pay Surtax at a higher rate that was in force at the time when he was alive in the year preceding his decease. That does not apply to Income Tax. It was for that reason that I put down my Amendment. Will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury tell us why Surtax for any year in respect of tax due from a deceased taxpayer should be at the rate of Income Tax for the preceding year, and not upon the Surtax of the preceding year?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think that I can dispose of the argument of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) and the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) in a few words. Before the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) altered the Income Tax and instituted Sur-tax, the arguments of the two hon. Members would have been sound, but when that alteration was made, the Sur-tax became a thing not apart from but a part of the Income Tax, in other words, Income Tax, as explained in that Act, includes Income Tax, at the standard rate, and what is now known as Sur-tax. Therefore, the words "Income Tax" correctly covers Sur-tax.

10.0 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: On the matter of wording, will the Financial Secretary explain what would happen if the rate of Sur-tax is raised next year, as is likely to be the case if the present Government remain in office, and the rate of Income Tax is left alone? On that wording, does Sur-tax
cover Income Tax, or does it merge into Income Tax?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Baronet had better let me explain the Clause and then he will understand the point. Income Tax covers Sur-tax, but Sur-tax does not cover Income Tax. Why are these two taxes dealt with separately? Income Tax at the standard rate is assessed for the year in which it arises, and when a person dies there is no hardship in his estate paying Income Tax for that year at the standard rate passed in the Finance Bill. In regard to Surtax, there is a difficulty, because Sur-tax relating to the year 1929–30 is not actually paid until January, 1931. In these circumstances, and particularly in view of Clause 7, a difficulty would arise in regard to a payment by executors in respect of the property of a deceased person's estate if they did not know until a considerable time afterwards what total amount they had to pay. It is quite reasonable that in regard to a living taxpayer he should pay on the 1st January, 1931, at the rate imposed in the Budget of the preceding year, but where the taxpayer dies before the new Budget is introduced, it would be unreasonable that his executors should have to pay an additional rate. Therefore, this Clause is a concession. The hon. Member for Farnham asked whether the estate of the deceased taxpayer had the best of it either way. It has. Under this Clause, if the new Finance Bill reduces the rate of Sur-tax, the estate gets the benefit of the reduction, but if it puts up the rate of Sur-tax the taxpayer does not have to bear the increased amount. After this explanation, I hope that all the hon. Members who are fighting in the interests of the taxpayers will be satisfied.

Mr. REID: I accept the explanation of the Financial Secretary, but it would satisfy some of us if he would explain under what Section of the previous Finance Act it is defined that Income Tax includes Sur-tax.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Speaking from memory, I think it was in the Finance Act of 1927 that the change over was made from Income Tax to Sur-tax. I understand that it was in Section 38 of that Act that the Income Tax was divided into two parts—Income Tax at
the standard rate and an additional amount payable by people with incomes of over £2,000.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Will the Financial Secretary explain to me this Surtax only becomes payable more than a year after it is imposed, and in another Clause of this Bill provision is made in case in a subsequent Budget the Surtax is increased. It is quite true, as the Financial Secretary said, that Section 21 was apparently put in for the purpose of meeting the extreme difficulty if a man dies after 5th April, 1930, and becomes liable for the whole year's Surtax, and it is not payable till the 1st January, 1932. As the earlier Clause stands, the estate of that man would remain incapable of being wound up till some time shortly before January, 1932, when a new Budget had come in and a new rate of tax been fixed. I question the accuracy of the Financial Secretary's statement that this Clause gives benefit if there is a reduction in the same way as if there is an increase.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Clause does not give the benefit of a reduction, but it does not take it away. If it was not for this Clause, the estate would pay more if the tax was increased. It does not take away the advantage to the estate if the tax is reduced. In that case it is quite true that there would be a little more money coming in, but I do not think any executors would be very worried if there was a little more money than had been expected. "Shall not exceed," it says.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: If the executors keep an estate unadministered for a year and a-half and the tax is reduced, it might be that it gets the benefit, but it is at the expense of keeping the estate tied up for the year and a-half, which is out of all proportion, and I say again that this does not give any benefit in that instance.

CLAUSE 23.—(Provision for expediting in England valuations and assessments for years of revaluation.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. MARJORIBANKS:

In page 18, line 24, to leave out from the word "section" to the word "shall" in line 26.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I should have a great deal to say on this matter, but I have received an assurance for the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we shall have a future discussion on matters concerning London on Clause 26. I put down the Amendment in order to discuss the Schedule which makes little or no provision for London, but as we are to discuss this question on Clause 26 I do not propose to move the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member does not move.

Motion made, and Question proposed: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I desire an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the meaning of Sub-section (2).

In that Sub-section there appear the words:
So far as may be
I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain what is the purpose of those words. The exact reason for their inclusion is rather obscure, and I should be very much obliged if he would explain their purpose.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The reason is in order that appropriate methods may be adopted for dealing with the question of property which arises more recently than the previous year. In ordinary circumstances the value taken would be that of the preceding year. In some cases, it is the nearest to the preceding year or the property may have only come recently into effective existence. It is just to cover these cases that these words are included.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Is not that covered by the ordinary procedure? Is this separate from the ordinary procedure?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: it would apply to the year of valuation itself and is intended for the purposes I have indicated. For these reasons, the words are inserted.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I apologise to the Financial Secretary, but I want him to make it clear that there is no alteration in procedure and that the ordinary procedure will be adhered to as heretofore. He is not introducing any new method?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I can assure the hon. Member on the point. It says that the assesment is to be on the valuation of the preceding year, while in the case of new property there is no valuation of the preceding year. The Clause is intended to meet cases of that sort.

Sir B. PETO: Would it not be possible between now and the Report stage to find words to carry out the explanation which the Chancellor has just made? If he is dealing with the specific case in which there is no valuation for the preceding year, and therefore no value can apply, why does he not put those words in the Clause instead of using words which may mean almost anything? In general terms, it suggests that where convenient something shall happen, and where it is inconvenient it shall not happen. Surely, we might have some more precise words to carry out the explanation which has been given instead of the very vague words? I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make it clear what is the purpose in putting in these words at all. Let him put in words which are appropriate to his explanation so that anybody will be able to understand what is the scope and limitation of this matter. I do suggest that, although it may not be very easy always to define precisely what is the intention of every Clause of the Finance Bill, it is surely better to put in some words which will really explain what are the exceptions which are being made. The right hon. Gentleman made it very clear to the Committee that the only thing in his mind was the case where there was no previous valuation, and I suggest that between now and the Report stage words to that effect should be put into the Bill.

Sir D. HERBERT: I gather that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in mind cases where property which has been
practically valueless becomes, by reason of something that is done to it, something of value and that that is the case which he wishes to meet. There is the case of a property which, though nearly valueless one year, becomes of considerable value in the next year. That property is to be valued on the previous year's, valuation "so far as may be." It may be valued "so far as may be" on the value of the previous year, although that value is very low. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or non-existent."] I am not dealing with the case of property to which no value whatever has attached, but with the case in which there has been a very big change in values. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in those circumstances wants a new valuation in the actual year under consideration, instead of acting on the valuation of the previous year, but those words will not effect that purpose.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Gentleman is now discussing an Amendment which is on the Paper to leave out those words but it is the Clause as a whole which is before the Committee.

Sir D. HERBERT: With respect, I submit that, while there is no Amendment before us, the hon. and gallant Member for Fulham (Lieut.-Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" asked for an explanation of the effect and purpose of those words and it to that explanation that I am referring. I suggest that those words will not do what the Chancellor wishes to do and, as I say, I am not referring to cases where there has been no value, but to cases where there has been a negligible value and where the property has afterwards acquired a real and substantial value. It would be quite possible, although it might be absurd and not in accordance with the intentions of the Chancellor, to value a property on which £10,000 had been spent on the value which it had in a previous year before that money had been spent upon it. I think that those words require further consideration.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: In the case of a building which is about to be erected,
how is it possible to arrive at any value except by an utter guess? The practice in London is not to make a value until the building is erected. Further, provisional lists of valuations are always issued beforehand which would seem to cover the point raised in this Clause.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I think it is perfectly clear that those words "as far as may be" refer to cases in which no assessment exists, that is, to practically new property, though there may be some exceptions. My objection is that the words are a little obscure but I think the principle is a well-known principle. An old valuation could only be applied "so far as may be."

Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Parishes for purposes of assessment in England.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major ELLIOT: We desire a short explanation as to the machinery and purpose of this Clause and the method by which it is intended to bring about this change.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I think I can explain it almost in a sentence. The Local Government Act of last year abolished the Poor Law parishes which have previously existed and which were also parishes for Income Tax purposes. It is now proposed to alter the Income Tax provisions to bring them into conformity with the new areas. The new area is a very large one and the object of the Clause is to bring the area arrangements within manageable proportions for Income Tax purposes. It is purely a matter of machinery.

Question, "The Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 25.—(Appointment of General Commissioners in Scotland.)

Ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I am very much obliged to the Committee for the expedition with which they have worked during the last few hours.
As a reward, I do not propose to keep them any longer to-night.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 23rd June.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.